Patterico's Pontifications

4/29/2015

Hillary Clinton Just Needs To Stop Using The Word “Transparency”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:20 pm

[guest post by Dana]

What do you call a brazen individual who has no shame, thus cannot be shamed? Hillary Clinton, of course. She is the very definition of deceitful unmitigated gall.

Today Hillary gave her big speech at Columbia University before a student audience that had been warned by her campaign that “no…recording devices, and placards of any kind” would be permitted in the auditorium.

During her speech, Hillary used a word that I have previously said no Clinton should ever use: Transparency. This because they are clearly unclear on the definition and application of the word…

With that, Hillary discussed the need for the police to wear body cameras:

“That will improve transparency and accountability and it will help protect good people on both sides of the lens,” she said. “For every tragedy caught on tape, there are surely many more” that now go unrecorded.

The patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable,”

It’s comical that today of all days, Hillary chose today to discuss the need for public servants to be transparent and held accountable:

*There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”

It hasn’t.

Oh yes, Hillary, patterns have indeed become unmistakable and undeniable.

(*Read the whole thing)

–Dana

33 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Just Needs To Stop Using The Word “Transparency””

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. She really has no sense of shame or honor, nor does she or the other two of her clan care a whit about what others think. An absolutely no sense of irony… http://t.co/NgoQnDuas3

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  3. Did Billy Jeff’s wife also talk about the the need to end the scourge of sexual assualt?

    That was hoot the first time she brought it up on the campaign trail.

    I was kinda hoping she’d make being angry about her hubby’s hobby a campaign theme.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  4. Hillary! “War Room, Bimbo Eruption” Clinton.

    Champion of women’s rights!

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  5. 3. She really has no sense of shame or honor, nor does she or the other two of her clan care a whit about what others think. An absolutely no sense of irony… http://t.co/NgoQnDuas3

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/29/2015 @ 8:34 pm

    The useful thing about the Clintons is that they reveal who is willing to crawl into the gutters and the sewers along with them.

    How’s the X1/9, Coronello?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  6. true, but there are a surprising amount of denizens down there,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  7. Is there a conservative counterpart to Hillary, meaning a very scroungy, very dishonest, totally manipulative prominent Republican? I don’t think so, even more so when various liberals — in order to level the playing field — have to do back flips and the watusi to point out unethical, scroungy aspects of a George W Bush, etc, etc.

    Hillary is a paradigm of why places and entities can become quite corrupt and corrosive in various ways when turned over to and dominated by the left.

    Mark (607f93)

  8. well take Brazil, when two of the opposition leaders, one a modern version of Lacerda, are also under indictment,

    \http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/04/01/3719936_brazils-rousseff-navigates-troubles.html?rh=1

    narciso (ee1f88)

  9. “for every tragedy caught on tape”

    Did she mean Scotch ™, magic, transparent, or painter’s tape? Rubio was sure right about Hill being yesterday’s candidate.

    john Pomeroy (0711fe)

  10. The X is running like a scalded cat, Steve. Thanks for asking. How’s your Miata project coming? A V8, right?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. Coronello @11, it’s not for the moment. Can’t spend the rent money, so to speak.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  12. The Clintons are fundamentally unethical people. They have always been so. Always.

    In college, Bill sought an ROTC appointment to evade the draft without being technically a “dodger.” He delayed holding up his end until his draft exposure was ended, then dumped it.

    Just out of law school, Hillary was fired by the Democratic counsel for the Democratic-majority House Judiciary Committee, for unethical behavior.

    Cattle futures, sex crimes, Rose Law Firm, the MacDougalls, the Riadys, false firings, high tech to China, it just lying under oath, disappearing subpoenaed records, goes on and on and on. These are just bad people, period.

    Estragon (ada867)

  13. One thing is certain in these United States. Hillary Clinton will be the next President. I don’t say this lightly. I hope I am wrong. Regardless, can anyone paint me a picture of how it will not happen?

    The GOP will tear itself apart in the primaries. She has no competition from the left. And the Clinton’s play rope-a-dope better than Ali.

    Despite feints (Bernie Sanders, really?) from the party regulars on the Dem side and a total lack of GOP cohesion, her coronation is assured.

    Somebody prove me wrong. Really. Somebody prove me wrong.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  14. Hi Estragon. I responded to your comment in the inflation thread.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  15. I find her completely transparent.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  16. A fun thing to do this election for all those PAC people out there.

    Every place she goes that has a band, bribe a band member to play “Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves” as she walks in. Every time. Watch them go bonkers trying to stop it. Then get people to play it on their phones, or whistle it, or hum it, or otherwise get the tune where she can hear it. Make it a contest to see who wins the big bucks.

    Disrespectful that we think she’s a crooked whore? Sure. What’s your point?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  17. Did y’all see the part where they trotted out Chelsea to declare how an independent group had awarded Clinton Inc. a transparency award… except they didn’t?

    I don’t think Hillary’s going to make it to the elections.

    Toastrider (4c0340)

  18. She is so out of touch.

    It’s like they sit around in their little cocoon and formulate all these dumb strategies to fool the rubes, and we’re like, we don’t believe you! We have the proof!

    The stupidity of her highly paid staff is just breathtaking.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  19. It’s not just the scum bag liar Hillary! who shouldn’t use the word transparency, it’s all the leftist liars. When they say it I automatically think: here comes a lie.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  20. Question. If the Clinton family business is legal and ethical why shouldn’t we all follow their example? Leaving the WH broke and unemployed in 2001 they’ve managed to outperform the market offering only the power of words in exchange for the satisfaction of giving from strangers around the world. If only we all followed their example we could eliminate poverty in record time.

    crazy (cde091)

  21. Speaking of transparency:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/30/nyt-globe-clinton-foundation-used-byzantine-organization-to-hide-donors/

    I strongly suspect that no amount of sleaze and corruption will stop the Democrats from voting for Hillary! as their nominee. Then yelling “sexist” and “War on Women” to anyone who raises it.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  22. criticizing Hillary is racist!

    redc1c4 (dab236)

  23. Related. Relevant. Unusual for me.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/04/no-smoking-gun-for-hillary-5-cases-where-it-didnt-matter/#more-125182

    Schweizer is quick to point out that he is an author, not a prosecutor, and his job was merely to report on what he believed was a pattern of behavior. He said it is up to those with subpoena power to look into the issue further and determine if there was any criminal behavior. That being said, the “smoking gun” argument doesn’t really pass the sniff test, because there are plenty of politicians who have been indicted and/or convicted of crimes without the presence of a “smoking gun.” Here are just a few:

    There is a reason the Clintons use of the word transparency doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s the same reason a mafia-owned steak house keeps a double set of books. Any night of the week you go in it’s empty. But they claim to make $750k a month.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  24. I mean, it’s nice if a mafia-owned restaurant makes a profit on its own (for the mafia). Just like it’s nice when the Clinton crime family charitable foundation commits an act of charity.

    But that’s not why they exist, folks.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  25. it’s like the Mob controlled bank, at the opening to Dark Knight, you can tell because the branch manager, carries a sawed off shotgun,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  26. All money laundering operations work the same way.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  27. …Blagojevich has built his appeal around the fact that the government did not prove there was an “explicit promise or undertaking” to perform an official act on anyone’s behalf. The government contends this was not necessary to secure their conviction…

    In this case the government is right. They just need to prove the quid precedes the quo. The understanding doesn’t need to be explicitly stated in a flashing neon sign.

    In McDonnel’s case they never proved there was a quo following the quid. They still got a conviction.

    But in the case of Hillary! all the Democratic operatives with bylines are pretending that unless her signature is on a notarized statement saying “In return for this bribe I shall (fill in the blank)” then you can’t prove she’s a crook.

    And if you can’t prove she’s a crook, Hillary! is presidential!

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  28. many of these cases, were abuses of the honest services pretexts Stevens, Conrad Black, Blagojevich, in the first two the motives were clear, in the last the reasons are a little more obscure,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  29. Yes, the “honest services” pretext meant the feds could not only indict but prosecute a ham sandwich. That if you called in sick but really wanted to go to an afternoon baseball game the gub’mint could send you to prison if they wanted to. But leaving that aside plenty of pols have been convicted of corruption for accepting relatively inconsequential gifts. Things they could well afford and you’d never believe could sway their vote. But months later they voted for something that advanced the interests of the gift giver and hello, Club Fed.

    But that’s never been the standard on which political corruption prosecutions rested.

    …If the standard is to show that action was taken after donations were made, whether there was an “explicit promise” or not, then shouldn’t what happened with Hillary and the Clinton Foundation be subject to a criminal investigation at most and at the least, a Congressional inquiry?…

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  30. *…could not only indict but successfully prosecute a ham sandwich.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  31. re Fitz, who was responsible for at least two of those proscriptions, it’s curious how the
    targets never reached Daley’s inner circle, or farther east.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  32. David Burge @iowahawkblog · 4h 4 hours ago

    .@dkahanerules “You Can’t Prove I Was Bribed” is a great campaign slogan.

    https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog

    Steve57 (818fa4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6729 secs.