[ExI] The Clinton Foundation

Wed Aug 31 17:29:10 UTC 2016

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> > 
> John, the problem with these lines of argument is that it tends towards
> ends-justify-the-means in government which is dangerous.
>
> Sometimes the ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. If the
ends never justify the means 

then nobody would ever do anything because there would be no way to do it.

> 
> Huma Abedin’s employment by the Department of State in 2012 in
> particular.  She was being paid as a GS12 by the State Department with GS6
> credentials and no supporting documentation to justify it.  This is
> contract fraud itself.

I don't know what you mean by "GS6 credentials". If you're hired for job X
 then there is a set pay scale for that job and that's true 
at the state department o
r
for any government job
. Your boss gives you a job but he doesn't set your pay,
 you get the pay for the

GS scale
says you should get
 for that job.

>
> > 
> Simultaneously she was on salary to the Clinton Foundation.  This is
> conflict of interest

Perhaps but not illegal, and besides I 

don't give a hoot in hell about 
Huma Abedin
, she's not running for president.

> > 
> Everyone who deals in government contracts is trained in avoiding the
> appearance of impropriety,
>

They may be trained in it, but every President , every member of the House
of Representatives, every Senator, and every state governor (including
Gary Johnson
)  every mayor, and every city councilman has engaged in t
he appearance of impropriety
,
 they all accept campaign contributions
;
and those contributions help nobody but the candidate himself.
Contributions to the Clinton foundation help millions of people
,
but 
Hillary doesn't get a nickel of the money.

> 
> Note that none of this has anything to do with any of Mrs. Clinton’s
> opponents; her mainstream rival has never held any elected office.  Any
> mention of his name is a diversion
>

I disagree, I believe it has everything to do with her opponent, you
should always vote for the least bad person who has a chance to win. As I
have said it is infinitely (and I don't use that word lightly) more
important to avoid a apocalyptically bad president than it is to elect a
great one. We'll be fine if we get a mediocre president or even a bad one
provided she's not too bad, and who knows she might even be as good as her
husband was.

The charges brought against the two are grotesquely ridiculously
unsymmetrical.

*On one side we have a man who wants to torture people for fun, build a
idiotic wall, renounce the national debt, and can't understand why we don't
use nuclear weapons more often.

*On the other side we have a woman who's assistant (that I've never heard
of until a few weeks ago) may have done something that has the appearance
of impropriety.

The magnitudes just don't match!   And I STILL don't understand why, with
the exception of my own posts, Hillary receives *at least* 10 times as much
criticism on this list as her opponent even though he would be the most
anti-free trade President in a century.,

> > 
> So… Does Mrs. Clinton get a special pass?  Who else gets that?
>
>
Every single elected official in the USA gets that special pass

without exception, and they got it for doing worse crimes than having a
friend donate to a philanthropic foundation. 

> 
> Even if an organization does good deeds, it is required to follow
> established law.
>
> And despite thousands of people looking for decades nobody any clear
violation of established law

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160831/ed5128f1/attachment.html>