The Press Has Tried to Derail a Clinton Election with Fake "Scandals" Before, and...

[ericson00]

failed miserably!

Does anyone here remember how Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole nationally by 8.5% and won 379 electoral votes in 1996? Yet this was at the time after Susan McDougall and Jim Guy Tucker (whose removal gave us Huckabee) had been framed, and Hillary had been "the first First Lady to be subpoenaed" in early 1996, File/Travel "gates" were fresh in the minds of voters and other fake controversies had occurred? Constant GOP-led congressional investigations were also going on too and the Paula Jones show as well?

Yet all throughout the race, Clinton held large leads over Dole, in spite of equal opportunity vote-thief and mandate-killer pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA pro-gun-control Perot (The lie about 1992 has also been debunked before). Clinton also spent the last week of the '96 trying to take back Congress, both house and Senate races (instead of innundating large media markets which woulda given him a bigger margin and total), which shrunk his margin of victory over Dole. But still, he won, repeated and cemented many electoral votes we take for granted today, but back in 1996, were revolutionary to be Dem given their 1968-1988 records (CA, IL, MI, NJ, PA, VT, ME, CT, MD, DE, NH, NM). And a win is a win is a win, bragging rights and "mandates" aside.

Oh yes, the Clintons were exonerated in Whitewater, File"gate,", Travel"gate,". You think the media is bad today? At least today we have bloggers, Facebook, and Twitter to debunk stuff to the world. Back then in 1996, we only had CNN and the nascent Fox News to give us the 24-hour politics/news fix.

You guys who claim Hillary has "baggage" make me sick. There's a reason why "where's the outrage" a la Bob Dole didn't work.

[delrem]

1. "You guys who claim Hillary has "baggage" make me sick."

Others are made sick by the baggage.
Esp. since in every case it's baggage created by choice.

But if you want to be Hillary Clinton's butler, to take care of her baggage - to make it somehow "not exist" - then hey, I like a good clown.

[ericson00]

2. can you please give examples?

I have given them, as well as the evidence of the fact they were exonerated in the vast bulk of this "baggage." Unless of course you're a GOP troll simply sowing phony bad sentiment against the Clintons.

[delrem]

3. Nope. I'm content to listen to the news.

I'm happy that I'm not in your shoes

It can't be easy, trying to pretend that Hillary Clinton's entire past political career didn't exist.

[ericson00]

6. Fox News?

[liberal N proud]

11. Content to be told what to think?

Content to listen to the news indicates a lack of desire to verify the story.

The news does not give all the details such as the fact that all these emails have only been classified as classified retroactively. That means that they have had to create a classified information from that which wasn't before. But you will not hear that from the NEWS!

It is really easy to just sit there and let someone else tell you what you should think. I always think how sad it is for FOX news audiences because they don't have the ambition to check to see if what is being pumped through their brains is the truth.

Something to think about!

[7962]

7. Hillary was not exonerated at all, especially in the so-called travelgate.

Unless you also think OJ was innocent since he was found not guilty.
According to the prosecutor, there was "substantial evidence" that she was the impetus behind the firing of those people but they didnt feel it would be enough to convince a grand jury
Then there are the illegal fundraisers, rose law firm records, etc. Th email issue is hardly "fake".
Certainly the republicans have had their share of scandals too, but to simply dismiss ALL instances against Hillary as "fake" is ridiculous. No charges doesnt mean not guilty.

Meanwhile, I havent seen ANY investigations into ANY activities of Bernie Sanders from ANY time

[ericson00]

20. according to Ken Starr? You're giving that guy credence on a Democratic forum?

get out of the party, if you're even part of the party. You look like you belong in the GOP or Greens

[frylock]

21. You've been here less than a month, and you're telling people to leave the forum?

who the fuck are you?

[ericson00]

22. My posts and diaries show i honor and support Democrats and don't

Give right wing lies credence.

[frylock]

23. Hey, good for you..

give him a cookie.

[artislife]

25. Snickerdoodles are the choice cookie!

[7962]

29. Now that was hilarious. You got a way with words!

[misterhighwasted]

27. Ken Starr, Ann Coulter..

Really digging deep lately.
These two are the rot from the bottom of the barrel.

How sickly desperate times must be to have to reach down deep in that barrel of rotting stench.

[7962]

30. There's also the people connected to them that have been found guilty.

PLENTY of legit misdeeds in their past. Get off your high horse. If anyone on the right were tangled up in as much shit as the Clintons have been, we'd all be screaming like hell. Matter of fact, we did just that about Gen Petraeus. What Hillary has done with the email deal is just as bad as what he did. Ask that "right winger" Eugene Robinson from the Post!

[Control-Z]

24. He would have to have had activities.

Bernie mostly just talks - one note, and votes.

[Divernan]

16. From YOUR link re Filegate:

Your link, described as exonerating Clintons, is dated 2000. Ergo that investigation dragged out for 4 years. You see, the Clinton baggage isn't just the final exoneration for lack of sufficient evidence. The baggage is the years and years of sturm and drang and angst the country was dragged through, not to mention taxpayers footing the bill for these investigations. The baggage includes the Clintons staffing the White House with unqualified personnel. Craig Livingstone, Director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, had an unsavory past and NO qualifications for the job. Why was Livingstone hired?

Justice, FBI Settle Lawsuit With FBI Agent
In the lawsuit, Retired FBI agent Sculimbrene said that two months into the Clinton administration in 1993 he did an investigation into Livingstone, who was being considered to head White House personnel security.

Sculimbrene interviewed former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who said Livingstone had been highly recommended by Hillary Clinton, who apparently knew Livingstone's mother, according to the lawsuit.

Nussbaum and White House officials had previously said Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with Livingstone's hiring.

Livingstone resigned after it was learned that he oversaw the collection of hundreds of FBI files on current and former White House staffers, including some high-ranking Republicans in the Reagan and Bush administrations.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/04/24/justice-fbi-settle-lawsuit-with-fbi-agent.html

Rep. William F. Clinger Jr. (R-Pa.), the committee chairman, opened the hearing by asking why the president would allow "a political operative with a dubious background" and "a total lack of experience" to undertake such a sensitive job.

Smarting from such descriptions, Livingstone noted that he has been widely depicted in recent weeks as "a beefy former bar bouncer," a "political operative" and "a `henchman' who has supposedly engaged in all sorts of illegal conduct dating back 20 years." Livingstone said that "these are false and unfair caricatures of who I am." But even as he defended himself on this score, the committee released a deposition Livingstone gave last week, revealing his less-than-stellar background. He told committee staff that he used a variety of unspecified drugs until around 1985. Livingstone also said that he had been fired from a job at a Sears store in the early 1980s over the "improper exchange of an item which I had purchased" and that another job contract he once had was not renewed because his employer thought he had lied about whether he had attended a particular school.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr960627.htm
Fact:

Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission. The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy

It was illegal for anyone from the White House, no matter how "low level" to obtain these files. Sure, Craig Livingstone eventually took the fall for what Bill oh-so-charmingly, with his trademark earnest smile, dismissed as just a lil ole "bureaucratic error".

"Filegate" case in which the White House, beginning in 1993, obtained hundreds of confidential FBI background files of former Republican appointees.

The White House blamed a bureaucratic blunder for the files' transfer from the Justice Department to a basement room at the executive mansion. Republicans sharply criticized the fact that White House officials had access to such sensitive information, and they accepted the White House's explanation with great skepticism.

The FBI files improperly received by the White House included those of former Secretary of State James A. Baker III; Kenneth Duberstein, chief of staff to President Reagan; and Marlin Fitzwater, former press secretary to President Bush.

Clintons blasted for "Cavalier approach to sensitive security issues". (Boys and girls, can you say "presaging HRC qua cabinet officer cavalierly using a private email server"? Sure you can!)

On September 24, 1996, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee approved, on party lines, an interim report on the affair, blasting the Clinton Administration for a "cavalier approach" towards sensitive security procedures and saying that further investigation was necessary to determine if the events surrounding the files handling were "a blunder, the result of colossal incompetence, or whether they are established to be more serious or even criminal."[9][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy

[ericson00]

19. honestly, go join the Greens or the Republicans

if you're gonna peddle Arkansas Project crap, and show honour to the Clintons, who made this party into the electoral college juggernaut it is.

[tularetom]

4. You're talking about a totally different Clinton

Bill Clinton had a sort of goofy charm. He had people skills and charisma up the wazoo. So even though his entire political career was marked by rumors and allegations, people were ready to cut him some slack. And he was fortunate to have an opponent like poor old Bob Dole.

Hillary Clinton is completely different. She has no charm, no charisma. People are far less likely to overlook her scandals than they were for Bill because she acts guilty. She comes across as paranoid, resentful and defensive. Her explanations are opaque and they change often as new facts emerge.

In the final analysis, Clinton scandals will stick to her a lot longer than they did for Bill because people just don't like her. Sure, she might have 99% support but 98% of it is from "lesser evil" voters, those who think that she is the only alternative.

She isn't Bill. He could bullshit his way out of this stuff because people warmed to him. She'll never be able to do that.

[ericson00]

5. this isn't just about personality tactic here, which Hillary has been improving upon

but the idea that people here, like delrem and his ilk, say she "has baggage" but when pressed to give examples, will not.

[Scarsdale]

8. Baggage?

There is not a single candidate for the WH who is "pure as the driven snow" Not ONE. How about the tainted governors Walker, Perry and Christie? Luckily, they are republicans, so they are given a pass. People expect more from Democratic contenders. They are held to a much higher standard. If W had not been a repub. he would still be unemployed, just as Reagan described him. He complained that Bush's son "not the governor of Florida, the unemployed one" was hanging around, looking for a job. If $arah PayMe had been a democratic politician, she would not even be a fly speck on the window by now. Instead she is spouting garbage on Facebook, and having Nancy French publish the same stuff pretending to be Bristol PayMe.

[Android3.14]

10. "will not", at least to your satisfaction

[Maedhros]

26. Well her Iraq War vote certainly counts as "baggage." [n/t]

[misterhighwasted]

28. And berny funded it without hesitation and in so doing brought home a healthy Military bomb contract

He has some serious baggage also. Some explaining how that move jives with his anti-war hoo haa.

Berny has some serious blood on his hands as well.
What's he going to say about it?

[Divernan]

9. New to DU, 576 posts in less than your first month

That might set a DU record!
You are one concerned, hard-working newbie, for sure!

[TSIAS]

39. It's a full time job

Defending Hillary Clinton. Someone's campaign is getting their money's worth.

[ericson00]

40. It's more like grassroots activism at its finest

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. You raise an interesting point. Has the other side who instigated all the Clinton "gates"

finally won? In other words, did the sheer number of manufactured "gates" reach critical
mass? To the point that all totaled up - they have finally made the masses believe falsely that she
is untrustworthy?

OR

Is it even possible for any person to be embroiled in this many controversies without being guilty of something?

[greenman3610]

13. the GOP spent 70 million investigating the Clintons

for comparison, they spent only 11 million on the 911 committee investigation.
Their own hand picked prosecutor Ken Starr admitted he came up with nada, other than a blow job.

[Sancho]

14. I wonder how many critics of the "wealthy" Clintons have actually looked at the Clinton Foundation?

Here's the link:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org

If you have something to say about the way Bill and Hillary (and Chelsea) spend money, before you jump in you should look over the Clinton Foundation programs.

I had not looked carefully until this last year even though I had seen a few of their programs in action. IMHO, the Clinton's are doing wonderful work. They clearly believe in "social justice", and have done as much for people both in the US and the world as any President since Jimmy Carter.

Creating Partnerships of Purpose

We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.
- See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/#sthash.C5TZsvPg.dpuf

[askew]

32. Oh, hell no. They haven't done anything even close to what Jimmy's accomplished

post-presidency. That is a complete insult to his extraordinary record. Let me know when the Clintons' eradicate a disease or develop a center that can monitor elections all over the world. And that is just a bit of what Jimmy has done.

The Clinton Foundation has a great PR team and a lot of empty promises and some serious $$ that never quite makes it to the people who need it the most.

I'd say take a look at what they did (or didn't) do in Haiti and Morocco before praising the Clinton Foundation.

[Sancho]

33. Have you met Jimmy Carter? I helped with his campaign. Empty promises? You should read some more..

At any rate, you are apparently not aware of the history nor looked at what the Clinton Foundation is doing. Just going off on a rant without looking at the facts was the point of my post.

For example (from the Clinton Foundation website), [and only on the issues you brought up]:

Our Work on Global Health

Human Resources for Health

The world spends billions of dollars each year developing drugs, vaccines, and other lifesaving interventions to help low-income countries. However, every dollar spent is wasted if there is no health worker to provide these essential health services to patients. Read More about Human Resources for Health

HIV/AIDS

When the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) was founded in 2002, only 200,000 people were receiving treatment for HIV/AIDS in low and middle income countries, with medicines that cost over $10,000 per person per year. Read More about HIV/AIDS

Malaria

In the past decade, remarkable advances have been made in treating and preventing malaria. Better medicines and long-lasting bed nets have been developed. Donor funding for malaria control has dramatically increased from $153 million in 2000 to over $1 billion in 2010. Read More
- See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/by-topic/global-health#sthash.vEhGPge2.dpuf
---------------

MORE ABOUT GLOBAL HEALTH

Although treatments exist for infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, the developing world has had limited access to these treatments because of their high cost. A decade ago, only 200,000 people in developing countries were receiving treatment, with medicines that could cost over $10,000 per person annually. At its most basic level, this problem was one of economics: the market for these medicines was disorganized and operating at a low-volume, high-cost model. And developing health systems lacked the infrastructure to diagnose and treat patients properly.

By collaborating with manufacturers on the supply side and governments on the demand side – and transitioning the market to a high-volume, low-cost model – CHAI has reduced the cost of key drugs and enabled millions of people to receive lifesaving treatment. CHAI began its work in the Bahamas, and today, more than 70 countries are benefiting from treatments and diagnostics at prices that CHAI has helped to negotiate.

CHAI has applied this model to address treatments for malaria, diarrhea, and tuberculosis, to improve access to diagnostics, and to scale up the delivery of lifesaving vaccines in countries such as India, Cambodia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda – where providers and consumers are often unaware of the recommended drugs or vaccines. By partnering with governments to address these challenges, CHAI has also helped to create evidence-based solutions that are tailor-made to each country's needs, and has helped developing countries save more than $3 billion since 2007. And through human resources for health programs, CHAI is working with governments to improve medical and health education to a generation of health professionals. CHAI continues to work to economize and improve care in developing countries, with an ultimate goal of fundamentally changing the economics of global health and building health systems that are self-sustaining.

- See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/by-topic/global-health#sthash.vEhGPge2.dpuf

[askew]

34. I've read the puff pieces from Clinton Foundation's website.

The reality of what they haven't been doing in Haiti and Morocco is damning. As usual, with the Clintons, 90% of what they say is full of bullshit.

The Clintons aren't fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Jimmy Carter.

[Sancho]

35. Unless you've had personal experience with them, I don't think your "BS" opinion is valid.

You appear to be simply on a "bash and trash" meme without any specific knowledge of either the Clinton or Carter programming.

Have you been to Haiti or been involved in any similar efforts (domestic or international)? Some of my family and friends recently returned from Haiti. I haven't been to that part of the Caribbean lately. Even though there are major problems, why do you find fault with efforts to help? The Clinton Foundation has several programs in Haiti along side the efforts of others. The Clinton Foundation has most recently worked on education and economic issues.

The Carter Center has also had some programs in Haiti, though I'm not sure about their latest. I think Carter focused mostly on disease control, but I haven't looked at their international efforts.

You should follow the links instead of simply being difficult.

First, when NPR compared the Carter and Clinton Foundations, they were similar in disclosures:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/27/402625347/fact-check-is-the-clinton-foundation-the-most-transparent

Disclosure

The Clinton foundation discloses all of its donors, and, as Chelsea Clinton noted, it is now doing so more frequently as Hillary Clinton is running for president. That's more than other presidential libraries and foundations.

The Carter Center, which comes closest in work, also comes closest in size and disclosure. It discloses all but its smallest donors. It raised less money — $88 million — in 2012 (its most recent disclosure year) compared with the Clinton foundation's $278 million in 2013. But it has more total assets — $584 million to $381 million.

Here are more links from the Clinton Foundation, but they are ones you can follow:
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/frequently-asked-questions#sthash.E9XzIHlb.dpuf

Is the Foundation a partisan, political organization?

No. Both in legal standing as a 501(c)(3) organization, and in practice, the Foundation is apolitical. We serve only the millions of people around the world whose lives we seek to improve. In fact, the Foundation has a long tradition of working across the aisle. This has included work, first with President George H.W. Bush and later George W. Bush, in response to natural disasters in the Indian Ocean, New Orleans and Haiti; the establishment of the Presidential Leadership Scholars Program; and countless commitment makers and featured speakers at CGI.

Who contributes to the Foundation? Where can I find a list of Foundation donors?

We are proud to have more than 300,000 contributors; 90% of our donations are $100 or less. Like all philanthropic organizations, the Foundation depends on contributions to pursue our work around the world.

While not required by any law, but in keeping with a long-held commitment to transparency, the Clinton Foundation has for years listed all contributors dating back to the Foundation’s beginning on our website.

What do contributors receive in exchange for donations?

All of our supporters – corporations, non-profits, and individuals – get something in return, which is helping to improve lives around the world. Our contributors give to us because they want to see the circle of opportunity extended around the world; they want to see communities, businesses and governments working together to address problems that we all face but collectively have the know-how and resources to fix. That is what the Clinton Foundation does every day.

Do the Clintons receive any income or personal expense reimbursement from the Foundation?

No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.

[askew]

36. You don't need personal experience. There have been some really

well done pieces on their work in Haiti and Morocco and have shown how badly they did. As usual, the Clintons' overpromised and underdelivered.

[Sancho]

41. Anyone can write hit pieces...but they are usually not written from the front lines!

That's why I asked you...do you have experience with ANYTHING? Habitat for Humanity? Most recent Carter programming has been overseas and even HfH was not originally a Carter program.

Have you actually seen To Small to Fail? Americorps? Children's Defense League?

I find that most of the time, critics like to stand back and cast aspersions about "finances" or make up stuff for political reasons.

I also find that people who have put themselves out to actually help - whether domestically, with a foundation, with a government program, or church - have a better appreciation for fund-raising.

I appreciate what the Carters have done, and I also think that LOTS of people in the trenches appreciate what Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have done.

If you want to cite a "hit piece" that raises legitimate issues, then post it. If it's just more of the usually attacks without substance, then I'd prefer to believe what I see happening. There are plenty of "praise pieces" out there too, and most of them are first hand.

TP: PRAISE FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
BACKGROUND: The Clinton Foundation is a global non-profit organization dedicated to increasing opportunity for women and girls, improving global health, and creating economic opportunity and growth around the world. The right wing has been attacking the Clinton Foundation for accepting foreign donations, even though the foundation goes above and beyond the requirements to ensure transparency. The work of the Clinton Foundation has received high praise, from a wide array of individuals.

The right-wing spin machine is at it again, attacking the Clintons with an article in the press that shows how they went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure President Clinton’s activities with the Clinton Foundation did not pose any conflicts of interest while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
The story details the extensive vetting process for President Clinton’s activities with the Clinton Foundation, proving what the State Department has already said – that the Clintons went above and beyond the legal and ethical requirements.
The high ethical standards put in place at the Clinton Foundation were instituted directly and proactively by the Clintons, thus allowing the Foundation to continue its good work across the globe during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.
PRAISE FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION: The Clinton Foundation has received enormous praise from people all over the political spectrum. Here are just a few examples:

Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax: “There’s a good reason why he pledged a seven-figure donation to the Clinton Foundation. ‘I really like what he does,’ says Ruddy, referring to Clinton Foundation name partner and former president Bill Clinton…In a phone call with the ex-president last week, Ruddy says he explained, ‘I’m proud of what you’re doing, and I don’t care what they say on Fox News.’” [Washington Post, 2/23/15]
John McCain: “Let me also congratulate you, Mr. President, on the great work of the Clinton Global Initiative. It says a lot about a man that after 12 years as a governor, and another eight years at the Resolute desk, he is still working hard in service to others.” [McCain remarks, 9/25/08; video]
Mitt Romney: “The Clinton Global Initiative has also demonstrated the effectiveness of entrepreneurship and social enterprise. You endeavor to not only comfort the afflicted, but to also change lives [through] freedom, free enterprise, and the incomparable dignity of work.” [Romney remarks to CGI, Wall Street Journal, 9/25/12; Video]
Fox News’ Doug Schoen: Speaking about the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, Schoen said, “A lot of very good work has been done. I helped in Ukraine with the health initiative…that has literally saved thousands of lives.” [Fox News’ Fox Report Sunday, 2/22/15]
Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers: Referring to Hillary Clinton’s work with the Clinton Foundation, she said, “They have done a whole lot of good work. In fact, they’ve actually done real job creation with union pension funds where we have worked together to try to rebuild our infrastructure, try to create jobs, and try to have good, you know, returns on the money. And she’s also done a lot of work in terms of early childhood.” [MSNBC’s The Ed Show, 2/23/15]
Elizabeth Warren: “Earlier this month, Warren sent out a fundraising email on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic foundation run by former President Bill Clinton.” [MassLive, 12/24/12]

[Gothmog]

15. The NYT story is a great example

That story was leaked by Howdy Gowdy and the NYT then delayed correcting the story

[sufrommich]

17. Fake scandals,Ann Couler,right wing college groups.

I've seen them all used to try and damage Clinton right here on DU.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. There's a Fox News link right in this thread

attempting to smear and distort.

[riversedge]

31. so many RW

websites have been allowed on DU lately-makes me shudder.

[KMOD]

37. tons of money and decades of time

and still, nothing, nada

[ericson00]

42. so much for small government spending

[hrmjustin]

38. K&R!