25
   

The Pro Hillary Thread

 
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Sun 1 May, 2016 10:10 pm
@bobsal u1553115,

Clintons Will Return Any Gifts Found to Belong to White House
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
Published: February 6, 2001

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5— Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton received authorization to take certain household furnishings to their new homes as gifts but will return any items that are found to be White House property, a spokesman said today.

In the latest criticism over their departure from the White House, the Clintons faced questions today about taking $28,000 worth of furnishings, which two donors were quoted as saying had been intended to become part of the permanent White House collection, not gifts to the Clintons.

The disclosure, reported in today's Washington Post, came three days after the Clintons said they would pay $86,000 to cover the value of gifts they received last year in an effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The couple had originally sought to leave with $190,000 in gifts.

Officials said that at least $28,000 worth of furnishings, donated in 1993 as part of the White House restoration project, had been registered by the National Park Service as gifts to the permanent collection of the White House and not the Clintons.

A statement issued tonight by James E. Kennedy for Mr. Clinton's office said that all the chairs, tables, rugs and other furnishings taken for their homes in Washington and Chappaqua, N.Y., had been registered as personal gifts by the White House gift office.

''Every item accepted by the Clintons was identified by the White House gift office as a gift to them,'' the statement said, adding that the administrative staff at the White House had ''reviewed each of the items against the official list of White House property to ensure every gift was properly handled; none of these items was on that list.''

The park service handles permanent donations, officials said. Personal gifts to the president and his family are recorded separately through the White House gift office.

The statement offered no explanation for the apparent appearance of the gifts -- which include sofas, a rug and a kitchen table with chairs -- on both lists. Betty Monkman, the White House curator, did not respond to an interview request.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Mon 2 May, 2016 12:53 am
That smear meme - about Hillary supposedly "stealing" from the white house - is so dirty and cheap. It sullies and cheapens the whole debate. It isn't honorable, or smart, or useful or anything at all except purely hateful. I asked edgar if he even cares whether it's verifiably true, and got no answer, because guess what? He and other Hillary haters don't give a **** if their stories are true. They just hate, and and try to get others to hate along with them.

When I see that ****-slinging, I can't help but automatically think: I hope Hillary wins. I hope the haters have to watch her serve long and well. I hope she has many very famous successes as the first woman POTUS that just make them gag on their bile. I hope it pains them to their little koolaid-pumping hearts every time she does a speech, or appears on tv, or is even mentioned. I hope she wins and they ******* CHOKE on it every day.
revelette2
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2016 05:39 am
@snood,
It pretty much has been the way certain ones from the Bernie "people" (borrowed that) have resorted to doing. Edgar has been sliding down into bile for a while, it is has been sad to watch.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  3  
Mon 2 May, 2016 05:51 am
she's an incredible mimic

there are times i almost believe she's human
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  4  
Mon 2 May, 2016 09:55 am
@snood,
Desperation will get you nowhere snood.

While you attack Edgar and others when they present information, verifiable information (a half-second Google search is all you need) , you additionally continue your mindless attacks on Mr.Sanders and any other person who dares speak or write against your selected candidate.

You sank deeply into the mire long ago snood. Your posts used to be fair and even handed. They were often a pleasure to read and both honest and informative. In recent months they've take a deep dive into biased poppycock. They're useless in their (I suppose) intended aim, more likely garnering more displeasure and dislike of Ms.Clinton than earning her support.

edgarblythe
 
  3  
Mon 2 May, 2016 09:59 am
@Sturgis,
They have nothing and are afraid to admit it. Hence the mindless attacks. I plan on starting an I told you so thread, if Clinton gets elected, to rub their noses in it.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:00 am
Meanwhile, Hillary is winning the primary, go figure. She will continue defy her critics and win the election, giving folks who are obsessed with finding meaningless trivial verifiable information to trash her with while she governs the nation as best she can with the help of hopefully more democrats in congress who will support her efforts. It is what it is all about, the rest is meaningless noise.


Quote:
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has a 92% chance of winning the Indiana primary.


538




Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:05 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:

You sank deeply into the mire long ago snood. Your posts used to be fair and even handed. They were often a pleasure to read and both honest and informative. In recent months they've take a deep dive into biased poppycock. They're useless in their (I suppose) intended aim, more likely garnering more displeasure and dislike of Ms.Clinton than earning her support.

You hit that nail straight on its head, Sturgis. Snood has become toxic.
revelette2
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:11 am
@Olivier5,
I suppose edgar calling me an a** and saying he won't be talking to Hillary "people" but just saying what he wants to say and then moving on is not sinking into the mire? Gosh, you guys need to look into the mirror.

Just for the record I don't think Hillary is perfect, I have listed issue I disagree with her about. However, I think Bernie is incompetent and too ideological driven.
Sturgis
 
  2  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:13 am
@revelette2,
Winning? Depends on how you wish to view it.

Is it really a win when so many are voting against her?

Can it really be considered a legitimate win; when, in several states the super delegates are still planning to support her even as the states themselves supported Mr.Sanders by a large margin? (Washington is a good example)


If the super delegates had supported Mr.Sanders prior to the first primary in the way they have Ms.Clinton, then, come convention time he would be the person ahead.

If the media had not spent so much time constantly yammering on about totals when super delegates were tallied in, the entire circus would have been less absurd.
revelette2
 
  3  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:27 am
@Sturgis,
Winning is winning. She has more votes than Sanders and she won more states. It would be ridiculous for super delegates to change their minds when she has more votes and won more states than Sanders. Not all states are created equal. It is not the super delegates task to go with their states, if it was, why have them at all?

election results NYT

ehBeth
 
  3  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:36 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Winning is winning. She has more votes than Sanders


I thought I'd look at the raw vote numbers

Popular vote Clinton 12,209,087 Sanders 9,074,247


not sure how many of those Sanders votes are votes for him or votes against Mrs. Clinton (as Sturgis has suggested), but the popular vote number is still in her favour
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:37 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:
Is it really a win when so many are voting against her?


I'm interested in this take. Doesn't it matter who the other candidate is? would anyone else have the same results?
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:40 am
@Sturgis,
The Democratic party has strong armed the primaries to the point where we are less of a democracy than some the countries we criticize.
revelette2
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:42 am
@edgarblythe,
Even though you might not respond except to call me a name and then say it is not personal, can you give specifics ways they strong armed the primary this year that was any different than when Obama won against Hillary or other primaries? In other words, any rules created after Bernie announced his bid for presidency just to squeeze him out of the race?
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  0  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:44 am
@ehBeth,
Well, when I voted against Hillary in 2008 I voted against Hillary. Now I am voting against Bernie. I would have voted for Biden if he had run.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Mon 2 May, 2016 10:52 am
@revelette2,
Ed has not written dozens of posts deriding other posters just because they happen to post things he disagrees with. The impression Snood and you give me is that you keep focusing on the messengers because you can't deal with the message...
revelette2
 
  2  
Mon 2 May, 2016 11:05 am
@Olivier5,
Yeah, and that is why I post issues from the NYT and fivethirtyeight. When I have derided others expect in trying to get others to keep from doing it to me? Did I call edgar a name? No I did not nor have used derogative names when referring to Bernie supporters. He and Lash have repeatedly, they have also made out like Hillary supporters are not really liberal or progressives when we have been voting our whole voting life for progressive issues. It is a misjudgment on their part they started and I have responded, I won't back away in neat little quiet box and let them have at it for you or anyone else. They can promote Bernie without trashing Hillary or most specifically Hillary supporters then we will get along just fine.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  5  
Mon 2 May, 2016 11:22 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:

Is it really a win when so many are voting against her?

While I assume that some are voting against her, I think most who did not vote for her are voting for Sanders, not against Clinton. That said, I think it is really a win when so many have voted for Clinton - more than have voted for any other candidate this election season.
Sturgis wrote:
Can it really be considered a legitimate win; when, in several states the super delegates are still planning to support her even as the states themselves supported Mr.Sanders by a large margin?

Clinton has built a solid and growing lead in the elected delegate count in this election. That the super delegates who meet and speak with both candidates also overwhelmingly support her makes her already significant victories more meaningful, not less. That the Senators who worked with both her and Sanders overwhelmingly and enthusiastically support her while their Republican counterparts conspicuously avoid endorsing adds even more. On all fronts, the popular vote, the delegate count and the endorsement race, Clinton is the most successful candidate of the 2016 race so far.

Sturgis wrote:
If the super delegates had supported Mr.Sanders prior to the first primary in the way they have Ms.Clinton, then, come convention time he would be the person ahead.

But he did not earn their endorsement and Clinton did. You are saying "if only all the people who voted for Clinton voted for Sanders, then he would be the person ahead." True, but those people did not vote for Sanders because they thought Clinton was the better choice.

Sturgis wrote:
If the media had not spent so much time constantly yammering on about totals when super delegates were tallied in, the entire circus would have been less absurd.

I haven't seen a lot of talk about super delegates other than on a few politics sites and usually from Sanders partisans, but the media is a two edged sword. Clinton has had a lot more negative media than Sanders who has received pretty much a free ride. Some say Sanders was ignored early on and that has some truth to it due to Trump sucking up all the air in the room, but he's stood toe to toe with Clinton during six debates. He's made his points and she is winning. I think there is no room to say that's not legitimate.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2016 11:23 am
@snood,
Its not a Smear meme, snood. Whether you think its OK or not for the Clintons to take gifts from foreign governments in violation of Federal laws that have been around decades, or take historical pieces of furniture donated to the White House with the explicit understanding they would stay with the White House, the Clintons felt obligated themselves to return several tens of thousands of dollars worth of it without any litigation or court orders.

This is not a right wing smear, this was news then at least to ABC and the NYT regardless of however Limpbaugh and Drudge chose to spin it.

The real smear I am disappointed in is the one you cast on Edgar. Agree with his take or not, he did present a claim that was not very hard to verify.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/news/mn-23723

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/the-class-act-e-mail/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-gifts-called-disturbing/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 10:40:14