2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRetraction: Hillary Clinton did NOT sign off on Huma Abedin job change
NYT: Hillary Clintons Chief of Staff Authorized Job Change for Huma AbedinA document certifying a new employment position for one of Hillary Rodham Clintons senior aides at the State Department was signed by Mrs. Clintons then chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills, according to a copy of the document provided to The New York Times on Sunday.
Last week, The Times and other news outlets reported that the document was signed by Mrs. Clinton personally, based on a copy that was obtained by a conservative watchdog group. On the document, Mrs. Clintons name was printed above the signature in a box intended for the aides supervisor, but the signature itself was redacted by the State Department, according to the group, Judicial Watch.
The document was part of a process undertaken in 2012 by which Mrs. Clintons then deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, began working simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton familys foundation, and the consulting firm Teneo. A Clinton aide on Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the signature was that of Ms. Mills, and said that it was within Ms. Mills duties to sign such documents on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.
MindfulOne
(227 posts).
It just occurred to me that Hillary never takes credit for fuck ups, but always takes credit for things she didn't really do, like bringing peace to Northern Ireland.
That's bullshit. If you own anything you have to own everything.
Unredeemable, in my estimation. This candidate is empty of value and if she wins the primary she will lose the general.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)There is no "fuck up" other than in the imagination of the rabid right wing. You seem disappointed and angry that it wasn't Hillary's signature. Why would that be the case?
By the way, I support Bernie, but I find the attacks on Hillary on DU most curious. And if she is nominated I will vote for her. And I really don't think she is going to lose--unless Democrats like you stab the rest of us in the back.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)They're retracting a false story and you're still whining about Hillary. Perhaps you can tell us why correcting a false record has you so angry.
oasis
(49,151 posts)"If you own anything you have to own everything"
Congratulations on your ownership of Judicial Watch.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)Thanks for posting.
6chars
(3,967 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)The anti-Clinton bias in the US media is absurd.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)The original story was wrong in that the redacted signature above the Secretary's name was really Cheryl Mills not HRC herself. They have published this article correcting that.
The key thing that does is remove a clear lie against HRC. However. This is her Chief of Staff signing to allow HRC' s right hand person to work for the SD and private employers - who just happen to be the Clinton Foundation and Teneo. This seriously does not distance things that far.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Clintonistas blaming EVERYTHING on anti-Clinton bias from anyone who questions or criticizes Hillary. The decades old victimization excuse has long outlived its effectiveness.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)What's next for the Klaymanites here?
For that matter, will you be a mensch about it?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)they're in such a rush to report anything that makes Hillary look bad that they don't even take the time to make sure they have the facts.
BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)Judicial watch. And all the FOIA requests have been by Judicial Watch and Citizens United. 2 groups I'm sure no one here wants to carry water for.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I would expect sometimes the Exec has to sign, maybe sometimes the Exec has to discuss it, and maybe sometimes the Exec just passes stuff over to be done completely by the CoS, but I don't know.
Anyone?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Does anyone honestly believe it was done without the Hillary's approval? She has a chief of staff to sign off on things for her. The chief of staff follows her orders.
wow.
TM99
(8,352 posts)If not, then her lack of oversight on such a matter speaks negatively to her being a sound leader. Where does delegation end and allowing others to take the fall for you begin? It has been a very thin line for Hillary Clinton for decades.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)If Hillary signed it or if her chief of staff signed it, isn't that just a minor detail?
It is reasonable to assume that Hillary still approved it. If not, then she can't trust the people she puts in key positions.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)these demands for apologies are ludicrous
twii
(88 posts)Explain the charges that should be brought on Hillary's chief of staff. You are not suggesting that the DOJ was wrong in not pressing charges on anyone, are you?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Only that Hillary not signing it does not mean that she did not approve it.
Nothing more.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)[url=https://flic.kr/p/vVTbRL][img][/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/vVTbRL]pearlclutching[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/131813008@N02/]
Vinca
(50,168 posts)authorizing an underling to sign your name is the same as you signing it. I'm not a Hillary fan, but you'd think Huma was Mrs. Bin Laden for heaven's sake. There are better thinks to squabble about.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She is like Oprah's Gail. She just might really get H and have the skills to do the work. A lot of work. And maybe it would be good to employ another person to get another household out of the red, but hey.
In the end, it doesn't amount to much.
riversedge
(69,716 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)What the hell is going on over there?
twii
(88 posts)People who benefit from their lying about Clinton, that is. Supporters of her political rivsls on either party.
Autumn
(44,748 posts)riversedge
(69,716 posts)'corrections" might catch some eyes.
oasis
(49,151 posts)Autumn
(44,748 posts)It was signed on Hillary's behalf. Think about that for a minute.