Is there no one in the Obama administration or Clinton campaign who understands the phrase

[cherokeeprogressive]

"Appearance of impropriety"?

Fuck me to tears... so now there's an Email/Transparency CZAR who will be instrumental in handling The Clinton Mess for The State Department and that only two months ago made the maximum individual donation to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

God damn but George Carlin had it right when he said "It's a Big Club, and you ain't in it".

[TwilightGardener]

1. From what I read, they didn't vet her first. Didn't know

she was a huge Clinton fan, and she must not have volunteered it. It looks bad. The ultimate conflict of interest.

[Divernan]

3. The GOP will double down on challenges to the State Dept. & this whole nightmare

will be dragged out even longer and messier.

[TwilightGardener]

6. They should have chosen someone else as soon as it was known.

The State Dept. must have had a bunch of people to choose from...why THIS one lady? If I gave $2700.00 to someone (which is a lot of money, unless you're Trump), I'd sure want to make sure that person wins an election, yes?

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. The worst part for me is that the State Department spokeshole can stand in front of cameras and say

"There's not going to be a conflict of interest. There's no conflict of interest. None at all,"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/09/state-department-was-unaware-of-transparency-czars-donation-to-hillary-clinton-213452#ixzz3lOG3cLgE

[TwilightGardener]

10. I like John Kirby, but he's in an uncomfortable position here.

[karynnj]

8. They knew her from her years of work including cleaning up a mess with issuing VISAs

Clearly she SHOULD have had the presence of mind to volunteer the information. It is entirely likely that the donation was not even public when they were vetting her, interviewing her or offering her the job.

At this point, they should ask her to withdraw and find someone else quickly.

It sounds from the descriptions that she has a long, solid record in the State Department. I doubt anyone thought to ask - have you donated to a 2016 candidate. She, however should have immediately seen that this would present a problem.

[TwilightGardener]

11. She should have known not to even allow herself to be considered.

[karynnj]

12. I agree which is why I have no sympathy for her

The SD should fire her even though it might harm their effort to fix the problem long term.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Damn right we're not...

And they know nothing about the "Appearance of impropriety."

[hifiguy]

45. Just like Holder, lawyer for Wall Street banksters

being appointed AG, then returning to his firm to defend Wall Street banksters, after failing to prosecute even ONE major bankster.

Move on, nothing to see here.

[tularetom]

4. Umnderstands? Probably. Gives a shit? Definitely not!

[840high]

36. ...^ that

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Perception matters. Already 57% of Americans think she's dishonest and untrustworthy.

[jfern]

7. And her favorables are 40-53

[Doctor_J]

13. They have shown they don't care any more. Arne Duncan. Don Siegelman. Eric Holder.

the whole DLC cabinet.

[zeemike]

17. They don't have to care.

Because we have just accepted it as normal.
We have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs.

[ReRe]

22. Bingo! n/t

[truebluegreen]

21. Don Siegelman?

[840high]

39. Debbie.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. And they sacked one of the good ones...

he being Van Jones.

[SoapBox]

14. I didn't even hear about this...

And the person is STILL going to be the "Czar"?

Wow...that smells.

[daleanime]

15. Of course you're not in it, if you were in it....

how could they hit you over the head with it?

[OnyxCollie]

16. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[MrScorpio]

18. She must be guilty of something, right?

Too bad the Justice Department doesn't operate on the premise of that, if someone looks guilty then they must be guilty of something.

Turns out that those are rules whenever someone named Clinton is involved.

Witch hunts, baby! It's all politics.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Yeah you're right... there's no appearance of impropriety when the person hand-picked by

the State Department to handle the way Clinton's emails are meted out to the public is not only a donor, but donated the maximum individual amount to her campaign.

TwilightGardener put it best; (paraphrasing here) "ya think she donated because she wanted Hillary Clinton to lose?"

[George II]

28. People are entitled to their personal lives, only the suspicious want to deny that. In my town....

.....the outgoing mayor contributed to the candidate from the OPPOSITE party (against his fellow-party candidate) and then campaigned vigorously against the opposite party candidate.

Quite honestly, who gives a rat's ass who he contributed to?????????

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Well you have one thing right...

I don't give a rat's ass who your small town mayor contributed to.

Nicely put.

[George II]

34. And you have the dismissiveness routine down pat, too.

[artislife]

37. ZING....ha ha ha!

[restorefreedom]

19. i did not have sex with that woman

sorry couldnt resist.

there seem to be parallels, albeit not sexual ones

sad.

[bettyellen]

47. Wow, you sound like Ann Coulter now. So proud of you.

[restorefreedom]

48. hypocrisy knows no party lines

it just is.

[bettyellen]

49. and sex scandals are for RWNJs. we don't need more Fox news bullshit at DU, it serves no one.

[jwirr]

20. No matter how honest she is about how she handles

this the Rs are NEVER going to let it go and they are NEVER going to quit using it against her.

This whole mess is just one insane thing after another.

[George II]

24. And the beat goes on..................what's your point?

Is this another attempt at smearing Clinton (and Obama as collateral damage) in favor of promoting the Sanders candidacy?

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Apparently you don't understand the phrase either, or the context in which it was once used.

[George II]

26. I understand the phrase very well, you haven't articulated your point, however.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. It's a point that articulates itself to anyone who doesn't wear blinders or have tunnel vision.

[George II]

31. I don't wear blinders or have tunnel vision, but your veiled accusation (and motive) IS evident.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Too funny.

[artislife]

38. Just ask yourself if the person had donated that much to Trump....

would you consider it an issue?

If not, then you live in a very wonderful world, indeed.

[shenmue]

35. Yep

[rhett o rick]

42. Telling the truth about H. Clinton isn't smearing. She is clearly a friend of the billionaires. She

admits that. She admitted she made a mistake with her Iraq vote and also a mistake re. her emails. Those are not smears.

You are choosing the candidate that is supported by the 1%. Why? Do you believe in trickle-down or what? Do you believe the wealthy are destine to rule? Hey, do you believe in democracy?

[arcane1]

29. If this were happening to the Bush administration, every DUer would have a belly full of popcorn.

Of course, that would never happen, because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to go after shit the Bush administration actually did.

[vadermike]

32. geez

We now have all of the GOPers leading her outright or tying her at best .. my prediction; she drops out right after super tuesday if not before.. I mean the Cnn poll .. Carson is slaughtering her.. my god.. we are so fucked

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. I seriously doubt that the Clinton campaign was consulted on this hire

At best this was just sloppiness on the part of the State Department.

[AgingAmerican]

41. When your campaign co-chair runs the DNC

Etc, folks get things done on their behalf.

[99Forever]

43. I'm sure its just a crazy coincidence.

I mean what are the odds of someone trying to cover up for a Clinton misdeed?