When news broke that Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe was under investigation by the Justice Department and that his campaign had taken $120,000 directly from a Chinese-owned business, it may have seemed like an open-and-shut case.
But federal law doesn’t preclude foreign-owned businesses from making political donations, and Virginia law doesn’t limit their size. So amazingly enough, if there was something illegal here, that wasn’t it.
Here’s what happened and why, at least by the peculiar standards of our campaign finance system, McAuliffe did nothing wrong — that we know of.
McAuliffe ran and won the governorship as a Democrat in 2013. He received $120,000 in donations — $70,000 for his campaign and $50,000 for his inaugural — from West Legend Corp., a New Jersey construction materials company controlled by Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang.
The sheer size seems improper. Yet Virginia permits unlimited, direct contributions by both individuals and corporations to candidates for state offices — e.g., governor, the state senate and general assembly.
That’s why West Legend, with its $120,000 contribution, was only the 57th biggest donor to McAuliffe during his two campaigns for governor. (He also ran and lost in the Democratic primary in 2009.) Coming in first at $6.7 million was the Democratic Governors Association PAC. Next was Independence USA, a Super PAC funded by Michael Bloomberg to promote gun control, with $1.7 million. Notable individual donors include longtime Clinton supporter Haim Saban ($572,636), Facebook’s first president Sean Parker ($500,000), BET founder Robert Johnson ($495,000), and Bill Clinton ($110,000). Among the other corporations that gave to McAuliffe are tobacco giant Altria ($243,667), Hospital Corporation of America ($177,500), and Genentech ($150,000). All this helped McAuliffe outraise his 2013 Republican opponent nearly 2-to-1.
Most Americans might guess this has something to do with the 2010 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, but in fact it doesn’t. Citizens United and related cases declared it unconstitutional for the federal government and states to limit corporate and individual spending in ways formally “uncoordinated” with campaigns. The decisions did not affect federal restrictions on direct donations to campaigns in federal elections: Individuals can still only give $2,700 per election to any candidate for federal office, and corporations still cannot donate to federal candidates directly.
But states have always been free to make their own laws about direct contributions to candidates in state races, and they do so in a huge variety of ways. Kentucky limits donations by individuals to $1,000 per state candidate per election and prohibits donations by corporations. Indiana allows unlimited donations by individuals, but corporations can only give up to $5,000 for statewide races.
Virginia is one of six states that allow direct, unlimited contributions by anyone. (The others are Alabama, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, and Utah.) In other words, for Virginia state elections, the fact that Citizens United made it possible for corporations to spend an unlimited amount in ways uncoordinated with candidates was largely irrelevant. Corporations could already just cut checks directly to candidates for as much as they wanted.
Then there’s the issue of West Legend’s foreign ownership.
According to U.S. law, it’s illegal for a “foreign national” — meaning a foreign individual, corporation, or government — to make any donation in connection with a federal, state, or local election.
However, the legal definition of a foreign national specifically excludes any “corporation … organized under or created by the laws of the United States.”
So, since West Legend Corp. is incorporated in the U.S., it’s not a foreign national and can take part in U.S. elections like any other American company.
Both Wang’s and McAuliffe’s representatives have been eager to assert that Wang is a permanent resident of the U.S. and therefore legally permitted to participate in U.S. elections under the same rules as American citizens. But in fact, as far as the status of West Legend goes, that’s irrelevant; the company would be a U.S. national whether or not Wang is a permanent resident. (If you find this bizarre and unacceptable, Ellen Weintraub, one of the six members of the Federal Election Commission, agrees.) West Legend did not respond to questions about its ownership structure.
Where Wang’s permanent residency would be legally significant is under Federal Election Commission regulations that forbid any foreign national from engaging in the “decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation,” regarding political expenditures. As long as everyone participating was a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, then Wang and McAuliffe are legally in the clear. FEC advisory opinions also suggest that to be legal, the $120,000 donation must have been generated by business activity in the U.S.
So you can say the way politicians harvest money from donors is appalling. You can say it’s particularly gruesome in Virginia. But as of now, if there’s evidence that McAuliffe broke any of the rules of an ugly game, we haven’t seen it yet.
Related:
- Foreign Money Is Flowing Into U.S. Elections, Alito’s Lying Lips Notwithstanding
- The Movement to Fight Big Money Politics Now Has a Gold Standard
- Rep. John Sarbanes and a Campaign Finance Reform Plan That Might Actually Work
Top Photo: Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe in June 2015.
Illegal money in campaigns? no consequence
Bank robs you? no consequence
Politicians take money improperly to enrich themselves? no consequence
Ceo’s backdate options and rob investors and the company? no consequence
Wallstreet falsifies stock and bond values to rob cities and funds? no consequence
Police murder unarmed persons? no consequence
Water supplies deliver lead in water and poison populations? no consequence
President falsifies information, illegally invades another country killing zillions? no consequence
Vice Pres embarks on a torture program and illegal detainment and kidnapping? no consequence
US allows and supports the genocide of Palestinians and theft of land? no consequence
NSA runs a spy on everyone operation and intrudes on all lives, lies to the population and acts as a police state? no consequence
Congress allows the existence of poverty and decrepidation of public infrastructure? no consequence
Congress holds the population hostage by withholding life support? no consequence
Gov of florida falsifies election results that enable his brother to seize power? no consequence
Pres kills hundres of innocent persons using drones? no consequence
Bombing hospitals? no consequence
Running guns and drugs by govt officials to the detriment of americans? no consequence
You see a pattern here?
Maybe the real problem is that americans are too accustomed to being abused.
The problem is private campaign financing, which should be outlawed. Perhaps the public funds idea could work if candidates who eschew private donations and accept public funding instead make a big issue of it and shame their opponents who accept this legalized bribery. Otherwise, there’s no hope for this totally corrupt political system.
I think your analysis is correct Jeff, although I don’t think shame will do anything at this point. The system of corruption at the national level appears to be self reinforcing (the more power and control it gets the more it seeks to obtain and the easier that becomes). It’s hard to see how we break out of this.
While the citizenry doesn’t want any of this, the 2 parties (beyond their social issues differences) are firmly in control of the political system of the U.S. and (at the national level) firmly enabling / participating in this corrupted system. This article from several years ago seemed pretty on target:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/04/14/us-oligarchy-not-democracy-says-scientific-study
I think the only way to make the system work is to outlaw campaign advertising. That, as I recall, is how it is done in Europe. Nothing else will work. In the case of a wealthy man such as Trump getting money out of politics will only help him or any other wealthy person. But controlling advertising would work. Of course, that’s a pipe dream.
You want to outlaw speech you don’t agree with. That is what you just typed. You’re right about Europe. They have criminalized several more forms of expression than we have.
This is good reporting, but at a cost. It makes many of us sick to our stomachs to see how truly corrupt things are at both the state and federal level. It brings out a sense of both hopelessness and shame.
The hopelessness comes from a historic perspective as this level of rampant corruption usually marks the end of an empire.
The shame comes from being part of the duped that just maybe could have been part of those which did something.
Because the corporate media and nearly the whole of the left leaning media are so united in hostility to Trump, the equally bad war-hawk, corporate-friendly Cinton keeps getting a pass. I applaud the Intercept for its integrity in scrutinizing them both fairly and objectively. But please keep focusing on Clinton so that we don’t have to depend on right wing media for critiques of Clinton. This nonsense about stopping Trump at all costs is poinsoning coverage of his campaign.
This must really bum the Bernies out. It would be fun to see all those foreign donations Sanders got.. and flagged by the FEC, but this isn’t the place for objective journalism.
How many donations from foreign nationals did Sanders get?
@ luvbrothel
While why not demonstrate how informed you are by providing links to “all those foreign donations Sanders got . . . and flagged by the FEC” since I read the stories re: Sander’s filing errors (most were not timely returning monies from individual donors that allegedly exceeded individual limits as opposed to “inappropriate donations by foreign nations”) and didn’t notice them.
Not saying they aren’t there, but seeing as how you claim they are maybe you should provide the proof–in the interests of criticizing other’s practice or non-practice of “objective journalism”.
Here’s you chance to shine and prove your as yet unsubstantiated allegations and inference that The Intercept is somehow biased against the Clinton’s (or their well known allies), but doesn’t show the same scrutiny to Bernie Sanders.
I’ll wait and thanks in advance.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=A&cycle=2016&recipdetail=S&mem=Y
And to think the Berne only needed to cater to 171,000 voters, a constituency far smaller than Yonker’s NY. But hey, them are politics, it’s just that you shouldn’t pretend you’re clean when you’re just as dirty on a relative basis as all the others, you just have an all white constituency who happens to love guns.
Nice link. I’m well aware of it. Now demonstrate you know how to use it to defend that allegation that Bernie Sanders has taken any inappropriate monies from foreign nationals and that the FEC flagged such contributions.
I’ll wait. Thanks in advance.
Hey if or should Hillary Clinton lose the GE are you going to blame it all those folks who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary (assuming the vast majority won’t vote for Clinton which history and past data says is wrong)? I mean that’s how you blamed it on Nader voters when Gore lost even though as is widely established fact that over 300,000 registered Dems in Florida voted for Bush as opposed to about 97,000 who voted for Nader.
Here’s a newsflash slick, at this point most of us who won’t vote for Hillary Clinton (a very small minority of Sander’s supporters is my guess) are immune to your shaming and guilt like we are somehow responsible for any political losses she may suffer, or any harms that may befall all Americans if she is not elected.
I survived Reagan and two Bushes and President Clinton. And so did the vast majority of Americans. I voted for the latter but not Reagan or either of the Bushes. And that’s “democracy” brother/sister and if your candidate can’t attract enough voters to win an election that “fault” resides in exactly one individual (and her campaign staff)–the candidate. And I don’t whine about it or blame others. I may disagree with my fellow Americans that voting for Republicans (at least “modern” iteration of the party and its members) is incredibly foolish, destructive and counterproductive to the vast majority of the American people’s “interests”. But I also respect the fact that other Americans have different values and interests that they pursue to my individual detriment and those of others I generally align with–that’s life in a democracy.
But here is the simply truth, I owe no fellow citizen my vote (based on his/her perception of what is best for them, our nation, or any other individual or group). I owe no political candidate my vote. If a person cannot vote their conscience then the “right to vote” is basically a meaningless “right”. A “right” that is valuable only in so much as it is exercised consistent with others relative beliefs in how my vote was exercised consistent with “your values and expectations”. But sorry to tell you that’s not how things work in the real world. You vote for who you believe best represents your and others “interests,” and those of our nation, and others come to various differing conclusions about what best serves the interests he/she values most–whatever they are. And you live with those results in a “democracy”.
And if the ultimate winner actually does things that harm me or others (which has happened regardless of whether I voted for a particular candidate or not and I have been a registered Dem for my entire voting life of 32 years having never voted for a Republican that I recall), that is on that candidate/office holder.
I don’t believe in tactical voting based on some political calculus you believe to be superior to mine. I vote my conscience re: what issues and interests I value relative to all others I care about. Sometimes I agree with others re: which candidates are the most likely to advance those issues and interests, and other times I don’t. But you will never guilt or shame me into believing I owe you or any candidate my vote (or party for that matter), or that I’m morally responsible for what an elected official does or does not do once ensconced in office–that’s his/her moral responsibility and those who affirmatively voted for him/her.
Once this election is over, I will be changing my party affiliation to un-affiliated for a variety of reasons as is my right. And nothing you can say or do will ever influence my decision in that regard. I’m fortunate to live in a solid blue state and it is likely to remain that way for a very long time. Fortunate in the sense that “solid blue” generally aligns policy-wise with what I believe to be in the best interest of me, others and my state. I will continue to vote for state politicians that reflect my values and interests regardless of party affiliation. For all practical purposes that is only Democratic party politicians in Oregon as Oregon basically has no viable Republican party except in the non-populated areas of the state. What goes on in other states, electorally, is the collective responsibility of the citizens of those states.
You and the rest of the country are free to do as you please, and I’m fully prepared (good or bad) to live with those consequences because I actually believe in the democratic process, federalism and its outcomes–good and bad.
Jimmy, I am utterly baffled by your use of that link to (apparently) attempt to demonstrate Sanders’ claimed inappropriate acceptance of funds from foreign nationals or that said (alleged) improper acceptance was flagged by the FEC.
The only flagging I’m aware of is of individual donors who exceeded the $2,700 limit (typically by $200-300), usually by giving multiple smaller donations. As you might imagine, it would be pretty easy for even honest donors to make such contributions in error and it would certainly require significant bookkeeping effort to find them all and return the excess. It’s just the sort of thing that campaign staffs fall behind on, even with the best of intentions.
In any case, it’s really a minor matter. And I’m still looking for the foreign donor smoking gun. Can you help?
By the way, I’m no more a Sanders supporter than I am a Trump fan (you clueless twit!). Sanders’ support for wars and military excesses has disqualified him from my consideration, just as Killary and Trump are disqualified for me (for a much longer list of reasons). None of them are getting my vote.
“an all white constituency who happens to love guns.”
Oh, wow, good point. I AM white. Guns are kinda neat. Guess I’ll vote Trump.
In July 2015, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump named Gowdy as a possible nominee for Attorney General in a Trump cabinet.
Yup, there’s your source, Doug and evidently you are true believer, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted that tripe. Good luck, I don’t think your man Trump is going to get too far, but you never know, you might be in the money before long with all the liars like Gowdy backing you up.
@ Jimmy
Pretty sure Doug is no fan of Trump nor will he be voting for him nor will he stand to financially gain personally if Trump is elected.
But seeing as how you don’t like “innuendo” or “inferences” why not demonstrate any of those propositions regarding Doug, you know, with actual proof.
I don’t know, I guess your right. It’s just that anyone who posts a video featuring Tea Bagger Trey Gowdy as a source must at least somewhat believe in the man behind the words… That’s my only point. Honestly, I wouldn’t believe a word that Gowdy says, nor would I use him as a source. Sort of sleazy thing to do unless you believe in the guy, methinks.
Well, to be truthful, rr, I have been considering selling T-shirts if Herr Drumpf reaches the Oval Office.
My first offering may be, “Make America Prate Again!”
. . . or, maybe, “Make America Blate Again!”
Mr. Schwarz:
Either you, Glenn, Lee or Jeremy should consider doing a piece on this ongoing story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/wp/2016/05/27/fat-leonard/
And compare the punishments (if any) meted out to the Navy admirals and officers who willingly, and for their own self-interest, leaked sensitive ship and submarine movement schedules repeatedly over what may be decades, thereby compromising national security– by comparison to legitimate whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning et al.
I mean the scale of the corruption exposed is truly shocking not that anyone should be surprised when it comes to corruption and the D of D which should really be renamed to the US Department of Graft.
If you dig into the article you will see that alot of the folks involved are getting put away for decades – coming out as feeble old men with their lives ruined. Its only after you’re the direct friends or PR focus of the Administration (or part of an Administration) that “the rules” like this don’t apply (General Petraeus for example).
Stunning what the guy did though – the Russians could only look on in amazement (that’s if they weren’t paying Leonard for the information already).
Isn’t it strange that the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, FOX and every other corporate news outlet in the United States fails to report on these kind of details of campaign finance, or how the family members of politicians who are loyal to Wall Street get rewarded with cushy board positions and investments, or how foreign dictators fill the coffers of their private foundations with millions of dollars?
This kind of bloated massive corruption is historically seen in empires at the late stages of their existence; it’s really off the charts right now.
The $120K is the squid. What’s the pro row?
Terry has the best COKE hook-up in VA. He’s also got $3.5 million in cash in his house.
This is one of the pleasures of the TPP, to make it easier!
Here we go again, objectionable presentation, worthy of Trump: an organization that is fully funded by a billionaire, The Intercept, that is accountable to nobody but said billionaire uses photo to associate Hillary Clinton with sleazy money from billionaire to governor of Virginia, a former employee. The photo’s message, Hillary is filthy, she doesn’t care about anything but money and power, despite her years of public service. She is a sleaze, a charge if you spend two seconds looking through the history books is one of the strategies to destroy women in power and poor minorities, especially Southern blacks who were constantly accused of moral degeneracy and rape. (The same attack that Trump used against Mexicans).It’s all part of the same subliminal lie put forth by the billionaire funded employees of Greenwald’s The Intercept, whose work defending the massive racism against Muslims is extremely admirable and important. Still, here his site’s attack against Hillary from its own extraordinarily hypocritical and elitist base. “I didn’t predict how people would see it. Pierre [Omidyar]’s not just a funder. He’s the 100th-richest person in the world. He has $9bn, which is an unfathomable sum, and he’s from the very tech industry that is implicated in the NSA story. I probably paid insufficient attention to those perceptions.” Greenwald nevertheless insisted that he and The Intercept remain editorially independent of Omidyar. “I know in my mind that the minute anybody tries to interfere with what I’m doing, that is the minute I will stop doing it.”
You mean her years serving Goldman/Sachs and Pharma.
Hillary, like Carly Fiorina, is a really poor example of a woman in power. They both should be disparaged for corruption and poor decision making.
Goldwater-Girl Hillary is as transparently sleazy as GW is stupid. She’s acted in her own interest ever since she sat on the couch, next to Bill as ‘the good wife’, while Bill told 60 Minutes, through his signature shit-eating grin, that his marriage stumbled but they’ve worked things out.
I think Haim Saban picked the Clintons because he knew how corrupt they were. They’d sell out the American public in a heart-beat and AIPAC is buying.
Not one iota of proof of that. Check out the CHIP, that she put together with Teddy, one of the most effective insurance programs other than medicare in this country’s history. The doesn’t matter to the elite. You could definitely be recruited to work for Trump. No need for facts, just allegations. That’s how White Water worked, Vince Foster, all the rest. And now the email scandal, no different. Yes, she is a politician, yes, she had to compromise as every politician in the history of the world had to do. No, she is not a sleaze. Notice the louder the accusations against the Clinton’s,t he more likely that the source of those accusations are doing the same thing themselves.
Not one iota of proof that Hillary is not worthy of the allegations.
Jimmy, we all know the dangers that are inherent in accepting funding from 0.1 percenters — and the evidence of history suggests that Glenn knows at least as well as anyone.
Do you doubt Greenwald when he says that he would never permit interference with his editorial and journalistic freedom? Given his history, what would lead you to doubt it.
In this specific case, do you think Omidyar has guided the TI team to attack the eminently attack-worthy $hillary? If so, why would that be? Are you aware of some special animosity he has for Clinton that the rest of the world doesn’t know about? Do you have copies of secret memos showing that Pierre is working for Sanders, or Trump?
Claims require evidence. Hell, even innuendo works better when there’s some reference to reality.
And Willie Sutton robbed banks because that’s where the money is.
It’s not really that hard to figure this stuff out.
I actually agree that Glenn would have the integrity to do what he said he would if there was interference. Correlation does not mean causation. That said, many of the allegations made against the Clinton’s, including the above photograph, not article, but photograph which intentionally associates Clinton with the article, though it’s not directly about her, are based on the belief that she does not have integrity. That is the basic premise. In other words, in the case, correlation does mean causation. Yes, she has made a great blunder, Iraq. But she and Bill are basically very honest people. Read about Bill’s efforts with Arafat. Here’s a little bit from Mr. Chomsky, a man I admire, who begrudgingly admits that Bill’s work in 2000, including inviting Arafat to the White House was the one time a Middle East peace was ever even taken seriously. If you read Chomsky’s remarks, though, you would have no idea how close this peace came and how extraordinarily hard Bill worked on it. Not a clue. But you can at least see that Chomsky himself is admitting that something serious and important happened. This is from Alternet. Do you really think that the Clinton’s are evil, corrupt people? If you read the Intercept, it would be impossible to not to come away from that. All based on criteria, that the Intercept does not apply to itself.
“The one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his “parameters”: imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 to resolve the differences and were making considerable progress. In their final press conference, they reported that, with a little more time, they could probably have reached full agreement. Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, however, and official progress then terminated, though informal discussions at a high level continued leading to the Geneva Accord, rejected by Israel and ignored by the U.S.
@ Jimmy
You mean Bill is “basically” very honest except in the context of marital trust or telling the truth while under oath? Presumably that’s what you mean by “basically”.
And as far as Hillary Clinton goes by “basically honest” you mean “honest” in the sense that she can spontaneously “evolve” on any issue and take “foreagainst” positions as political expediency and necessity dictates to advance her own personal agenda? Presumably that’s what you mean right?
Because if you’d like me to rip off an exhaustive list of statements by Bill and Hillary Clinton that were dishonest when spoken if not knowingly factually incorrect when spoken (i.e. dishonest) I am happy to do so–but first you’d have to tell me on which topic you’d like me to begin with for each.
I personally could care less about Bill Clinton’s personal marital infidelity because it doesn’t impair me notwithstanding I believe it was wrong and abusive of a young woman in the context of his position as President and hers as intern.
However, nobody, and I mean nobody, would generally characterize an individual who engages in repeated extramarital affairs (which Bill Clinton did before and after becoming POTUS) as “basically honest”. Nobody (except you maybe given your stunted morality and understanding of the definition of “honesty”). Nor does anybody refer to someone as “basically honest” who lies under oath in an official legal proceeding whether administered by courts or a duly constituted committee of Congress.
But hey thanks for playing.
Only a Republican or a fanatic would focus on marital infidelities versus brokering a Middle East peace that even Noam Chomsky praised. Wow, marital infidelities…. ohhh, how morally stunted. And to think MLK did the same… how dare him, that filthy basically dishonest man.
But as Shakespeare said, The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Yes, methinks too, good luck with your personal life as methinks your fiery, Victorian, puerile rhetoric is coming from some place dirty. Methinks it’s somewhat like Gingrich’s or Livingston or. . . methinks…
Hillary Clinton Lying for 13 Minutes Straight
I particularly like the part with Trey Gowdy, the Tea Bagger from South Caroline. He’s a perfect fit for you and perfect way to make my point. Good luck with Mr. Gowdy and all the other terrible lies that Clinton committed here, such as claiming she was a progressive vs moderate. Oh, I am just so convinced. Doug, you need to grow up and learn the complexities of political life, and then don’t choose somebody like Trey Gowdy to make your point about Hillary Clinton:
In October 2015 Benghazi hearings, Gowdy admitted to redacting parts of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, citing parts of the e-mails being “classified,” though it was later discovered that Gowdy, himself, had redacted the e-mails.[35][36]
CNN Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Still Spinning about Emails
1 Week, 6 Hillary Clinton Falsehoods
But, of course, it probably depends upon what your definition of “lie” is, huh?
Are there any sources who have been critical of Clinton’s ability to tell the truth that you do accept? Or do you just think everyone is out to get the Clintons and they are the victims?
@ Jimmy
Seeing as how we are making this personal, I believe you are projecting your lack of morality and understanding of basic dictionary definitions of words you use but don’t seem to comprehend onto me (and I noticed you didn’t respond to the well established fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath in an official court and/or Congressional proceedings which is anything but the definition of “honest” or “basically honest”:
But I do love your moral relativism i.e. because Bill Clinton tried and failed to do something good re: I/P issue, it excuses his lack of honesty in other contexts.
I like to call that the Hitler Defense or Whataboutery Morality i.e. Hitler was “basically good” to animals so Hitler couldn’t be “all bad”. That of course is not to equate Bill Clinton’s lying about repeated marital infidelity, or the gender and occupational power differentials with a sitting President or Governor and the women he purportedly had “consensual” relationships with . . . to anything Hitler did in reality which were orders of magnitude more immoral and destructive of other human beings lives.
And just as a caveat, I never believed or supported the idea as someone who voted for Bill Clinton that marital infidelity in itself should ever be grounds for a legal proceeding or an impeachment proceeding. Lying under oath about anything however is another kettle of fish morally and legally speaking.
But neither does your “defense” of the Clinton’s integrity, much less “honesty” really resonate with someone like me who actually has a better ability to read for comprehension, dictionary definitions or otherwise, and whose moral compass does not equate lying and marital infidelity (unless known and approved by spouse) which is the definition of “dishonesty” with being “basically honest”.
And just so you knows there little fella, as a member of the profession Bill Clinton was a member of, Bill Clinton lost his ability to practice law in the state of Arkansas in part for his lack of “honesty” which of course is part and parcel of a “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” allegation and charge (and in this case something Bill Clinton admitted to doing) for which he lost his privilege to practice law.
Have you ever heard of or read of a prosecutor asking questions completely immaterial to his case, simply to trap a defendant into committing perjury, for example, let’s say you were after Gotti, why weren’t prosecutors able to ask him about questions completely immaterial to the crimes he was alleged to commit? Answer: because if prosecutors were allowed to do that, to stray from their case, anyone, no matter who it was, could be convicted eventually under perjury charges. Mr. Starr was a first. He was a rabid Repug attempting to bring down a sitting president and so he abused his special prosecutor privileges. I’m sure glad you figured that out. Never in the history of perjury was that done, let alone accepted.
@ Jimmy
How fun, I love hypotheticals. Particularly when they have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
You are of course aware that your analogy is what is correctly understood as “inapt” because President Clinton lied under oath about the very topic at issue–past sexual relations with other women in the course of a Paula Jones lawsuit deposition. A perfectly reasonable and relevant question in context.
It would have been quite easy for President Clinton to tell the truth. Lying in the Jones deposition was only one of the bases for impeachment.
But I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I do not find lying under oath, in any proceeding for any reason whatsoever, to constitute “honesty” or “integrity”.
As an aside, you should probably refrain from lecturing a fairly successful trial lawyer, me, about topics you aren’t entirely well versed in, assuming you want to avoid online embarrassment.
I agree that the photo representing Clinton in this article is a stretch. I wouldn’t say it’s entirely disingenuous though. To show a boat on certain troubled waters implies an isolated circumstance. To show it with other similar boats helps you understand the breadth and larger implications of the issue; essentially, that it’s not isolated. Clinton is a really, really good example of that. You need to only read the reporting in the Intercept over the last 6 months detailing Clinton’s many conflicts of interest. They’re real.
Clinton’s integrity. Can you fault her integrity for playing the game the way it’s been played up to this point, and even upping the anti (unprecedented post-office enrichment)? Not really. She’s doing what the two party brands do: try and win elections. Money walks, or at least it always has. The tricky issue is that she didn’t anticipate that other candidates might not play the same pandering game to corporate interests. So, integrity becomes a focus whereas it wasn’t before.
We’re critical of the Clintons because we have some ideals about integrity in politics, like one has ideals for morality in religion. You don’t look to a representative of god, a priest, to proselytize on behalf of the Word while looking the other way on their own morals. Same for politicians representing ethics and our social contract. Unfortunately, the Clintons are unprecedented in their ratio of power to exploitation of opportunity. They’ve built a big machine, true, but it runs on dirty fuel. The question is what Democrats truly want to stand for, and then living the change they wish to see. That’s what motivates so many Sanders supporters. It’s passionate, yes, but it’s not uninformed.
If the people withdrew their consent to be governed, the well-connected would have to win votes through the market rather than the lobbying fields. The large corps generally want more regulations because it keeps out pesky, innovative small competitors who can’t afford to play. Big Utility asked for government granted monopolies; Big Food wanted Upton Sinclair’s “reforms”; Big Tobacco (see Altria in story especially) wanted FDA regs to lock in its 50% share forever.
This is why when you say, “The system is corrupt.” there is really no defense against it. In this case, McAuliffe outsourced his vetting of contributions to a legal firm. So they were able to make sure that the laws were followed.
A neophyte politician would probably been tripped up by some of the nuances of our corrupt system and given the money directly. The arcane and byzantine elections rules are part of how the system hides its corruption.
The system is corrupt.
The Clintons have always been virtuosos at ALMOST breaking the law.
Judging from McAuliffe and de Blasio, it seems like their acolytes have learned well.