RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Greenwald writes: "As the numerous and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate - or even outright state - that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

27 August 16


s the numerous and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate — or even outright state — that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.” Other Clinton loyalists insinuated that Clinton Foundation critics are indifferent to the lives of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.

That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.

The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

Here’s one of the Clinton Foundation’s principal objectives; decide for yourself if its tyrannical donors are acting with the motive of advancing that charitable goal:

(photo: The Intercept)

(photo: The Intercept)

(photo: The Intercept)

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

(photo: The Intercept)

(photo: The Intercept)

(photo: The Intercept)

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

Another primary project of the Clinton Foundation is the elimination of wealth inequality, which “leads to significant economic disparities, both within and among countries, and prevents underserved populations from realizing their potential.” Who could possibly maintain that the reason the Qatari and Emirates regimes donated millions to the Clinton Foundation was their desire to eliminate such economic oppression?

(photo: The Intercept)

(photo: The Intercept)

(photo: The Intercept)

(photo: The Intercept)

It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that these donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes are motivated by a desire to aid the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. To the contrary, it just requires basic rationality. That’s particularly true given that these regimes “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.” For some mystifying reason, they seem particularly motivated to transfer millions to the Clinton Foundation but not the other charities around the world doing similar work. Why might that be? What could ever explain it?

Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in their hearts when they make these donations to the Clinton Foundation, have settled on a different tactic: grudgingly acknowledging that the motive of these donations is to obtain access and favors, but insisting that no quid pro quo can be proven. In other words, these regimes were tricked: They thought they would get all sorts of favors through these millions in donations, but Hillary Clinton was simply too honest and upstanding of a public servant to fulfill their expectations.

The reality is that there is ample evidence uncovered by journalists suggesting that regimes donating money to the Clinton Foundation received special access to and even highly favorable treatment from the Clinton State Department. But it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put another way, one cannot prove what was going on inside Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the interests of these donor regimes: Was she doing it as a favor in return for those donations, or simply because she has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators, or because she was merely continuing decades of U.S. policy of propping up pro-U.S. tyrants in the region?

While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.

Indeed, as I documented in April, Clinton-defending Democrats have now become the most vocal champions of the primary argument used by the Citizens United majority. “We now conclude,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Citizens United majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That is now exactly the argument Clinton loyalists are spouting to defend the millions in donations from tyrannical regimes (as well as Wall Street banks and hedge funds): Oh, there’s no proof there’s any corruption going on with all of this money.

The elusive nature of quid pro quo proof — now the primary Democratic defense of Clinton — has also long been the principal argument wielded by the most effective enemy of campaign finance reform, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell. This is how USA Today, in 1999, described the arguments of McConnell and his GOP allies when objecting to accusations from campaign finance reform advocates that large financial donations are corrupting:

Senate opponents of limiting money in politics injected a bitter personal note into the debate as reformers began an uphill quest to change a system they say has corrupted American government. …

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the legislation’s chief opponent, challenged reform advocate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to name Senate colleagues who have been corrupted by high-dollar political contributions.

”How can there be corruption if no one is corrupt?” McConnell asked, zeroing in on McCain’s frequent speeches about the issue in his presidential campaign. ”That’s like saying the gang is corrupt but none of the gangsters are.”

When McCain refused to name names, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, confronted him. Standing just eight feet from him on the Republican side of the chamber, Bennett charged that McCain had accused him of corruption in seeking pork-barrel spending for his home state.

”I am unaware of any money given that influenced my action here,” Bennett said. ”I have been accused of being corrupt. … I take personal offense.”

The inability to prove that politicians acted as quid pro quo when taking actions that benefited donors has long been the primary weapon of those opposing campaign finance reform. It is now the primary argument of Democratic partisans to defend Hillary Clinton. In Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a scathing dissent on exactly this point, one that Democrats once cheered:

(photo: The Intercept)

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Given who their candidate is, Democrats really have no choice but to insist that these sorts of financial relationships are entirely proper (needless to say, Goldman Sachs has also donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, but Democrats proved long ago they don’t mind any of that when they even insisted that it was perfectly fine that Goldman Sachs enriched both Clintons personally with numerous huge speaking fees — though Democrats have no trouble understanding why Trump’s large debts to Chinese banks and Goldman Sachs pose obvious problems). But — just as is true of their resurrecting a Cold War template and its smear tactics against their critics — the benefits derived from this tactic should not obscure how toxic it is and how enduring its consequences will likely be. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+67 # countrygirlagain 2016-08-27 09:34
Excellent article, Glenn Greenwald. So, what do we do next?
+28 # Anonymot 2016-08-27 14:32
Yes, another clear-eyed, well documented Greenwald article, long, in depth and to the point.

But your question is the hard part. Since Sanders was sand-bagged by the DNC and now comes up with His Revolution that is not very revolutionary and carries all the shortcomings that defeated him: being 95% domestic issues and Weaver led. His proposed new political party will not go anywhere and there is a very real danger that Clinton's evil pact with the CIA and America's moneyed folk could be the last act in a long play of dramatic errors. They started with Korea, included Vietnam, and remain failed but unfinished in the Middle East. Even Trump, for all his craziness understands that we would be smarter dealing with Russia and China than confronting them.

When the Clinton/CIA cabal decided to ring Russia with our Nato missiles, Putin had the same reaction that Kennedy had when Khrushchev decided to put nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. It is very unclear that the Hillary/CIA have as much sense as Khrushchev had when he removed them.

So both domestically and internationally we're trapped in a situation where Clinton/CIA may get us into the big war before another presidential election comes around.

Hillary's sole expertise is in LGBT practices, women's issues, & making money. The Clinton/CIA failures go beyond Bush dimensions. They may have combined to dig the grave of this nation.

Glenn, sorry for the new Clinton trolls Pious schmuck & mmc, who may be the old Lights.
+10 # laborequalswealth 2016-08-28 10:05
Great comment to a great article. I've started referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis, too. Not that I expect most Americans to see the common issue here, i.e. putting nukes too close to an enemy's ass.

Wonder how many Americans remember how the CIA went fucking ape-shit over the Soviet missiles headed toward Cuba, taking the world to the brink of WWIII. And from all accounts, the military was unanimous in demanding that Kennedy nuke Cuba. Does anyone seriously question that just such psychopaths are STILL in control of the military?

The next 4 years do not look promising.
+2 # jdd 2016-08-30 18:07
There are such jerks such as General Breedlove, or Sec Carter lurking around. The problem is that while there is a very cool head in the Kremlin, the White House is not and will not be occupied by the like of JFK or his brother Bobby, But rather, most likely, by an incurable warmonger and reckless fool who demonizes President Putin. It will be out task to box her in and put the country on a path toward cooperation with China and Russia. Humanity's future depends on it.
-17 # Caliban 2016-08-28 00:55
This article would have been damning if Greenwald had shown that the donations to the Clinton foundation were not going to its intended beneficiaries but rather going into the Clinton political war chest.

But I didn't see that in the article, and I am quite sure that Greenwald would have proclaimed it if he had seen any impropriety.

So, although I agree with Greenwald that Saudi and other sorts of donors do hope for favors from a future President Clinton, I don't see that he has demonstrated that Secretary Clinton did, in fact, favor any of them unfairly as Secretary of State nor that she would do more as President than her many predecessors have.

So, what is left? Vague innuendo about future favors? Hardly the stuff of either an "excellent article" or an effective expose of the Clinton Foundation or the Clintons themselves.

And there is this: "That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute".
+13 # laborequalswealth 2016-08-28 10:06
Wow. Did you TOTALLY miss the point of the article? Please re-read it.
-8 # Caliban 2016-08-28 14:18
Hi, # laborequalsweal th --

I take Greenwald's "point" is that by giving huge donations to the Clinton Foundation, Saudi oil interests were trying to buy influence with a potential US president. And I agree completely with Greenwald's assessment of the donor hopes and motives.

But my "point" is that without evidence of [1] direct quid pro quo responses to the donors by HRC or [2] of fraudulent use by HRC of such funds, there is no evidence that the Clinton Foundation is anything but the worthy charitable organization it says it is.

However, if I were to learn that Clinton committed unethical or criminal acts of influence or favoritism on the behalf of donors, I would certainly support a Bi-Partisan investigation into such actions.

So, # laborequalsweal th, if it still appears that I misconstrued GG's article, I'll welcome any corrective interpretation you are generous enough to offer.
+2 # harleysch 2016-08-29 17:12
Simple example of influence peddling: Hillary's insistence that Assad must go dovetails with the Saudi and Qatari line. One cannot prove that Hillary promotes the removal of Assad because the Saudis have contributed generously to the Clinton Foundation -- however, the fact that she has "shared interests" with the Saudis, ought to be enough to make the point Greenwald has developed.
+3 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-08-30 07:01
You guys. He left out the juiciest part of the Clinton Foundation scam. The foundation is a fake charity according to whistleblower and finance expert Charles Ortel. The respected charity rating website charity navigator has refused to rate the foundation.

According to Ortel's analysis of publicly available information on the Foundation it gives only 10 percent of its money to charity or uses it for programs. The rest, 90 percent is a slush fund for the Clintons. They use it to travel and pay their friends. Folks this I and of itself is illegal. You are not allowed to enrich yourself with a charity. This further illuminates the depth and breadth of the corruption going on. m Please take a little time to read.
+75 # Ralph 2016-08-27 09:37
The US has a long history of corruption and criminality in politics. There is no denying that. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed in the last 40 years is alarming. First it was legalized bribery and graft brought on by K Street. Then it was Citizens United, further cementing the hold of corporate fascists. Now the Clinton's have created yet another precedent. US government for sale via "foundations" accepting bribes at the international level. Anyone wondering how the US sponsored slaughter in Yemen has come to pass, need only look at the money trail. Once again, this is not going to end well.
+12 # laborequalswealth 2016-08-28 10:12
Thank you for showing the pedigree of this kind of corruption. I hadn't thought of foundations as the Next Step, but you are correct.

We have already seen this kind of perversion in the so-call "charities" who get tax-exempt status when in fact they are nothing but Republican or even more right wing PACs.

E.g. the uber right-wing Heritage Foundation that cooked up the template for the crap ACA, thereby derailing the single payer system that 69% of Americans wanted.

These foundations and "think-tanks" are nothing more than political lobbists for the rich. And they are tax exempt to boot.

As you astutely noted, the Clintons have just moved the game to the next level.

May all of them rot in hell.
+73 # jimmyjames 2016-08-27 09:51
Our population has become so cynical that the majority accepts bribery as just the way things are and tend to accept them and the lies that cover up the misdeeds. Only a minority of people are "awake" and understand how corrupt our political system is and how it affects our everyday lives.

Since the mainstream media is also corrupt, it is rare to have honest discussions in the public forum. If it were not for RSN and organizations like them (as well as writers like Glen Greenwald) on the internet, we wouldn't know honesty or truth at all. Sad, but true....
+12 # laborequalswealth 2016-08-28 10:23
Agreed. Just about everyone I talk to, from store clerks to professionals, is aware of the corruption and how "bought" our government now is. But they feel helpless because the path to action is obscured by media's lies of commission and omission of inconvenient issues.

Prime example: The TREASONOUS TranPacific Partnership (TPP) which hands over America's sovereignty and citizens' control of their lives and economy to a pack of unelected FOREIGN LAWYERS. If this isn't treason, I don't know what is, yet virtually NO ONE I talk to - including highly educated professionals and successful business people - has even HEARD of the TPP.

What may be THE most significant piece of legislation in 100 years, and fewer people know of it than know the name Kardashian. How are citizens supposed to take action if the info on WHERE to push is obscured? Scary. Really REALLY scary.

PS: Please do get the word out to friends and family on the TPP and urge them to write their Congressional reps. This is probably the ONLY thing that might stop it from being passed in a lame duck session.
-84 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 09:58
Attaboy Glenn!

Who would have thought that a nice GJM who stands up so firmly for Miranda Rights would end up being such an enthusiastic campaigner for Donald Trump?!

Go get 'em Glenn!

Keep perseverating on these pious, purist interpretations on everything Clinton!

Work on depressing the Clinton vote and help elect a President who would appoint a SCOTUS that would shut down US gay rights for 40 years and more.

Not so good for the LGBTQ community who can't afford to cruise the Rio beaches…

But why would that worry you?!

Glenn Greenwald - Not so much a columnist as Trump's FIFTH columnist!
+65 # Ted 2016-08-27 10:47
Hee-hee! You're being so silly!

Pretending that not wanting clinton as president automatically makes trump president! Silly!

I'm certainly not voting for clinton, and trump isn't even a serious consideration to me. If clinton or her followers are worried that she will lose to trump, she and they shoukd put all their support behind Stein, or better yet, re-enlist Sanders who beat them both in the polls when he was running.

The truth is, if trump gets in office, it is the fault of the dnc and their followers.

-72 # mmc 2016-08-27 11:27
Glenn Greenwald is a shallow, ignorant fool who's chief goal in life is to publicize himself.
-59 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 12:13
That's not entirely fair.

He also cares about his Miranda rights!
+50 # Jim Rocket 2016-08-27 13:22
Aaaaah, the ancient sport of shooting the messenger is still popular.
-35 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 13:52
Quoting Jim Rocket:
Aaaaah, the ancient sport of shooting the messenger is still popular.

And the even more ancient sport of purer-than-thou self-styled progressives falling over each other to damage the electoral prospects of the Democratic presidential candidate because he/she doesn't live up to their exacting Utopian ideals - even if it might result in the election of a far more dangerous opponent (c.f. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush, and now Donald Trump) is even MORE popular!

Fortunately only in these very secluded nooks and crannies of the smuggest and most pious
+23 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 15:04
Yeah, because progressives didn't hold their collective noses to vote for all the other 'lesser evil' candidates the Dems have given us. Or because progressives didn't vote for Obama.

You can rewrite history as much as you like but few here believe you, certainly no one with more than a few brain cells.

Trump being wrong doesn't make Clinton right. They are BOTH disastrous, and you seem incapable of rational thought.

Clinton is a warmongering disaster and Bill is a predator. Your support for them shows you're incapable of independent thought. You just get your little pat on the head and do what the oligarchs tell you.

You accuse progressives of being purer-than-thou ? If the alternative is what YOU've chosen, toadying blindness to a party, how does that NOT make you a fascist apologist?

Clinton uber Alles, eh, PiousAndPetulant?

What a good pet you are.
-25 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 15:28
If you think a Trump SCOTUS would be better for working Americans, women, LGBTQ (including those who deserted the USA) than a Clinton SCOTUS - then you and your family would fully deserve the catastrophic deluge

Fortunately your micro-niche views in this tiny echo chamber of Greenwald acolytes are not subscribed to by the vast majority that don't swallow your Orwellian bromides.

Good luck with your toy town revolution. Sure sounded good when we are all 15 and hadn't yet figured out the real world.

Day-dream on!
# Guest 2016-08-28 01:01
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
-34 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 12:19
Quoting Ted:
Hee-hee! You're being so silly!

The truth is, if trump gets in office, it is the fault of the dnc and their followers.


If you - and your fellow deluded - were the only ones who would suffer from a Trump presidency - not even decent caring progressives would care that much.

But the end result of your ludicrous pious posture - if it led to a Trump victory - would be so catastrophic for tens of millions of people. (The very people you would claim to be concerned about)

So those of us blessed with a modicum of common sense will just have to work all the harder to make up for the slack of your willful destructive behavior towards the genuine progressive cause...
+24 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 15:12
If you insist on taking a utilitarian approach than Jill Stein should be your candidate.

Trump will harm millions. The Clintons will harm millions. So what makes the millions the Clintons will harm less important than the millions Trump will harm?

You are a pedestrian thinker in a nuclear age.

Speaking of which, do you think nukes will harm more people than racism, or fewer? Do you think war with Russia will harm more or fewer than negotiating with them?

Do you think 'superpredator' is not racist? Or welfare reform? Private prisons?

Oh wait, sorry. You don't 'think' at all do you? You just like to throw verbal grenades. You are a dim bulb, PutridAndSlow.
-22 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 15:32
Which is why your chosen candidates have become President, run the Senate, run the House, how many times?!

I throw painful inconvenient truths.

Not as easy for some to enjoy as their perpetual adolescent mental wanking
+13 # Ted 2016-08-27 17:06

You might be blissfully content to accept whatever Hobson's choice your masters throw at you, able to convince yourself you've done your duty by chosing door number one or two.

I am not capable of such abhorent disregard for the sanctity of our democracy.

I will vote for and support the candidate I believe is best out of all those running.

I will vote for and support Stein.
-10 # ericlipps 2016-08-28 14:20
This sort of thinking is why progressives keep getting pounded at the polls in presidential elections.

Flush your vote down the toilet if you choose; it's your right in a democracy.

But if enough indignant progressives do the same, Trump will be elected. And huffy leftists will, of course, blame Hillary and the DNC for it because, in their view, Bernie Sanders as nominee would have walked on water to the White House.

Jill Stein hasn't got the votes, and wouldn't have even if every single person who voted for Bernie Sanders stampeded to her--which won't happen.

Grow up already. Even half a loaf--even a communion cube--is letter than nothing.
+5 # librarian1984 2016-08-28 05:50
So you think voting for a 'winner' is more important than voting for a candidate who reflects your beliefs and values? That explains a lot.

It amazes me you think you're intelligent, though I guess it fits the pattern of what passes for your thought. You can't even come up with an accurate descriptive moniker. lol

Your focus should be intellectual honesty, PiousNotBright, because that is what you lack.
-8 # ericlipps 2016-08-28 14:25
Quoting librarian1984:
So you think voting for a 'winner' is more important than voting for a candidate who reflects your beliefs and values? That explains a lot.

Oh, et off your high horse--or is it a unicorn?

I think most people would prefer a candidate who "reflects [their] beliefs and values" perfectly--but who could ACTUALLY WIN as well. Sometimes, however, the two just don't go together, and one has to settle for nylon rather than silk.
+2 # librarian1984 2016-08-30 09:35
That candidate? The one who reflected our values AND the one who could defeat Trump? That candidate, Bernie Sanders, WON the nomination and Hillary Clinton and the DNC stole it, so YOU get off YOUR high horse.

If Trump wins it's because the DNC went out of its way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Don't tell ME I'm not a realist, you Clinton apologist. I see you, and your fascist masters, quite clearly.
+7 # laborequalswealth 2016-08-28 10:32
AMEN. I was in Philly as a protester. The protesters were all corralled in Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park. The conventioneers were comfortable enshrined in Wells Fargo Center.

Seriously, they aren't even trying to hide the corruption anymore.
+32 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-27 12:15
@PragmaticNotPi ous -
Glenn Greenwald’s article makes a great case that since the generous Middle Eastern donors are strongly opposed to the three major aims of the Clinton Foundation, one of two things must be true. Either they only THINK they are buying influence with the Clintons/US government but are really being tricked or they ARE buying influence. Given the US’s deafening silence on Saudi Arabia’s current focus on bombing Yemeni hospitals, I’m going to guess the latter is the truth.

Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
In Philosophy: Of or relating to pragmatism.

In Philosophy: A movement consisting of varying but associated theories distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.

I think PragmaticNotPio us (PNP) wants us to think of her/him as “dealing or concerned with facts.” However, s/he sarcastically dismisses Greenwald’s article, not on the basis of the facts but because s/he thinks that painting Clinton as corrupt will cause undecided voters who are leaning towards her to vote for someone else. PNP’s motive is so strong that s/he labels Greenwald as pro-Trump and suggests he is working to subvert the US government. That’s not being “pragmatic.” That is throwing idealism under the bus in favor of your agenda. “Hypocritical” or “cynical” would have been better choices for PNP’s hashtag.
-38 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 12:57
It's the timing Diane.

It's also the over-the-top velocity.

Just like the conservatives who pursued Bill Clinton on Whitewater, Lewinsky etc in the 1990s.

Greenwald shrouds himself in a "Woodstein" shroud. But he's a self-appointed Ken Starr on a mission to destroy.

Steve Bannon would love him to write for (If not for his religion and orientation which would upset the White Supremacist wing of the "Clintons R Evil" mob

What strange bed-fellows Glenn Greenwald chooses!
+15 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-27 15:06
@PNP -
“It's the timing?” Ah, no… Timing doesn’t change the facts. Whether the sun rises at 6am or 7am, it still rises.

“Just like the conservatives who pursued Bill Clinton on Whitewater, Lewinsky etc in the 1990s?”
It’s interesting you bring up Whitewater. One would think that a President and a Presidential candidate who are proud of their political acumen and who tout their EXPERIENCE would learn to be careful about appearances from such a close call. Guilty or not, the Clintons faced a world of hurt were the accusations against them to be even partially supported by documented facts. So what did those two learn? Why that they could be as indiscrete as they wanted. They could appear as rotten as a month old corpse and not pay any penalty. I believe it’s called hubris, a condition afflicting most of the Elites who fail to notice it because they are ever so exceptional.

And sure enough… right after Whitewater came Lewinsky.

Speaking of scumbag husbands, it’s perfectly reasonable that Hillary “stood by her man” in the midst of all that travail. What is UNreasonable is not divorcing the SOB as soon as he was out of office. Unless of course there was something in it for old Hill. What a gal. Milking the golden goose (to mix my metaphors) for all he was worth.
-12 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 17:39
Quoting Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref:
@PNP -

Speaking of scumbag husbands, it’s perfectly reasonable that Hillary “stood by her man” in the midst of all that travail. What is UNreasonable is not divorcing the SOB as soon as he was out of office. Unless of course there was something in it for old Hill.

No one knows what goes on in a marriage except those in it. Perhaps she choose to forgive his failures out of a deeper love. We can all speculate. Or pontificate how we would handle such transgressions. But as the song says "t'ain't nobody's business if they do".

I look at all that Hillary's achieved - from the Childrens Defense Fund onwards and - like millions of regular Americans without an axe to grind - I know that she will be vastly preferable to Trump as President.

I'm old enough and practical enough to know that you don't get it all. Plenty of Bernie's policies appealed to me more. But he isn't the Democratic candidate.

I'm too savvy to throw my toys out of the crib and think that that will make the world better.

So I respectfully encourage you to put your nation before your pride and prejudice

If not for yourself then for the disadvantaged who will be hurt beyond anything we can comprehend by a Trump SCOTUS.
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-28 06:21
PNP: "Perhaps she [chose] to forgive his failures out of a deeper love"- funniest quote of my week. This is the Disney animated version of Primary Colors.

"If not for yourself then for the disadvantaged who will be hurt beyond anything we can comprehend by a Trump SCOTUS."

The people of Libya and Syria "have been hurt beyond anything we can comprehend", thanks in part to the loving HRC. The people of Honduras, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Haiti and Yemen have reason to blame her among others too. But you are only concerned for disadvantaged USians, right? And this doesn't include those swallowed up by the private prison industry, or welfare reform, or those exterminated in Waco, right?

It seems extremely unlikely that she would nominate true progressives to the Supreme Court. But that will prove to be largely moot if she is allowed to have her fascist trade agreements that will have a negative impact on us all, especially the already disadvantaged.

So, mr/s/ms "old enough and practical enough", how many more elections to you figure we have before a MSM sponsored "electable" candidate succeeds in starting WWIII with Russia and/or China? How many more before we see environmental collapse? When do you figure we may have a major party choice of something other than two evils? When would be the right time to overcome our lifelong conditioning and instead vote for a third-party candidate who we have reason to think will support our interests, mr/s/ms savvy?
+20 # jimmyjames 2016-08-27 13:10
Double thumbs up, Diane!!
+18 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 14:58

Ugh, are you back again?

You would PERFECTLY capture the three monkeys' philosophy (hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil) if you would only quit speaking.

Do us all a favor.
-15 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 16:19
Real world truth just a little bit irritating?

Prefer the sycophantic bleating?

Do Americans a favor and please (I'm asking nicely) explain precisely how a Trump appointed SCOTUS would be better for us than a Hillary appointed SCOTUS.

Feel free to start with Roe v Wade, Affordable Care Act, Gay marriage, renewal of Voting Rights Act, Citizens United…

You can even throw in a "gee - now that I REALLY think about it - I guess you're right - and for the sake of the nation over the next 4 decades I will put my country before my blind spot about the Clintons. I'll have to hold my nose while I do it - but I'm not so selfish as to condemn the USA to a Trump SCOTUS"

I won't even say "toldja" I - and millions of regular Americans - will thank you for putting them before your own agenda...
+16 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 18:16
You are deluded if you think HRC's SCOTUS nominees will be bastions of liberal thought. Look at her VP pick (Kaine) and her transition head (Salazar), both pro-fracking, pro-TPP corporatists. THAT is what her nominees will be.

You keep insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you as being foolish and duped -- when you are being willfully ignorant about the candidate you support.
+8 # laborequalswealth 2016-08-28 10:29
Thanks for giving me yet ANOTHER reason to vote for Jill Stein - the unceasing rudeness, arrogance and down right nastiness of Clintonistas. Politicos are know by their followers and way too many of Hillary's are assholes.

Yes, of course I know that Trump is horrible. So do you not question a system that has left us with the "choice" between two sociopathic, ethically corrupt, Wall Street worshiping, war-mongering multi-millionai res? THAT is the issue Greenwald is addressing.
+52 # REDPILLED 2016-08-27 10:04
Resources such as oil (despite its suicidal use as the planet continues to overheat), and the imperialistic desire for geopolitical position have always been much more important to power-hungry sociopaths than human rights.

The Clintons are among the most power-mad people in the U.S., as their bloody record going back to the 1980s proves, along with Hillary's advisors and supporters such as Henry Kissinger, Robert Kagan, and Max Boot, the neocons' most prominent war-lovers.

The fact that the two major parties present us with this horrible choice of Hillary or The Donald is yet another indictment of the failed nation the U.S. now is.
-14 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 15:37
Not the view of those who know them. Not the view of those who observed and benefited from Hillary's decades-long work for women and children.

All that Clinton-hatred turns you into Ken Starrs and Henry Hydes!

Fortunately such puerile scabrous hating is the alt-left version of the alt-right. Juvenile and way way beyond the fringe...
+28 # RLF 2016-08-27 10:14
Paid to not encourage alternative energy and continue to subsidize big oil?
-22 # norman markowitz 2016-08-27 10:24
First, Glenn, I would wait to throw rocks at Clinton, and there are certainly rocks to throw, until after she is elected.
Trump and his Nazi--KKK "fans" his Breitbart campaign manager with a Goebells resume, constitute the main danger right now to the American people and the people of the whole world.
Until they and the Republicans go down to a crushing defeat and the social movement that Bernie Sanders led and leads becomes ascendant in the U.S, it will not be possible to have free and fair elections, serious regulation of finance and industry, and serious labor and social welfare protections
After those victories, it will become possible to advance an anti-imperialis t foreign policy, which under even a reformed capitalism is the hardest thing to do. But we have to get real.
First, foundations were established by Robber Baron families to both get around tax laws and provide favorable publicity to combat populist-progre ssive "trust busters" more than a century ago. Second the U.S. inheriting the assets and liabilities of the British and other colonial empires in the early Cold War period, made control of the oil of this region it's first priority--- for example,the bin Laden family gained its wealth through building contracts with Aramco at a time that Dulles barred American Jews from setting foot in Saudi Arabia to please the Saudis. This all came into existence when the Clintons were small children and before you were born.
-39 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 10:47
Excellent points all.

I think they are sadly "pearls before swine" to those who are hell-bent on hatred and destruction of Clinton. And so purer-than-thou that they regard a Tump presidency - with all the devastation it would bring - as preferable to a Hillary presidency.

Of course any sensible caring progressive knows that a warts-and-all Clinton is infinitely preferable to Trump.

But alas to Glenn's fetid hatred - and to many in this forum - they prefer a scorched earth policy and the 'sturm und drang' of the post-nuclear social & economic landscape that would follow a Trump regime. The better to seed their Utopian (read delusional) revolution.

Those who genuinely care about working people, the poor, the disabled, the disadvantaged would never gamble that way.

But if you're lounging on a beach in Rio it's apparently easier to ignore that...
+35 # Ted 2016-08-27 10:50
OR... We could just put Stein in office therefore avoiding BOTH evils.

I know its REALLY complicated strategy stuff, but try to stick with me here, it will go like this...

The largest percentage of voters choose Stein. Done.
-1 # Caliban 2016-08-28 01:28
Come on, Ted. We can campaign and vote for Jill Stein, but we can't "just put Stein in office".

If you can't help prospective Stein supporters with "strategy stuff" and "content stuff", you aren't doing Stein much good on this content oriented site.
+3 # Ted 2016-08-28 13:20
Sure we can put Stein in office, just like any other candidate gets there...the majority percentage of voters choose her and she's in. No strategy stuff needed.

Now stop working against her by implying to people the lie about how she couldn't get in so they shouldn't consider voting for her.

And just so you know, 'content' is the articles, our discussions are "comments" on the "content".
0 # Caliban 2016-08-28 16:00
Actually, Ted, I think we are both saying mostly the same thing -- that to get Stein -- or any Third Party candidate -- elected to national office will require a national level campaign.

But I think I am more pessimistic about whether the needed financial and personnel support will be there for the Greens in 2016.
-6 # ericlipps 2016-08-28 14:34
Quoting Ted:
OR... We could just put Stein in office therefore avoiding BOTH evils.

I know its REALLY complicated strategy stuff, but try to stick with me here, it will go like this...

The largest percentage of voters choose Stein. Done.


Seriously, if Jill Stein were the choice of "[the] largest percentage of voters," she'd be doing a lot better in the polls than she is.

And in a three- or four-way race in which three or more candidates divvy up the lion's share of the vote, the odds are greatly increased that the election will end up in the House. Where again Stein would be buried.

Just do the math. It's not rocket science.
+14 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-27 14:19
Quoting norman markowitz:

Trump and his Nazi--KKK "fans" his Breitbart campaign manager with a Goebells [sic] resume, constitute the main danger right now to the American people and the people of the whole world.
Your opinion. It is equally plausible that Trump will have a Presidency much like Reagan’s second term and be forced to rely on his advisors even more than Reagan. He will not do what he thinks is best (thinking isn’t his strong suit) but what he is told. That won’t stop him from putting his foot in his mouth. Within a month or two he will be mocked in every redneck hangout, every suburban golf club, and every foreign country on Earth. He will be America’s unintended joke on itself. But dangerous? To be as dangerous as the Clintons who for decades have been PLANNING for a US regime change on the whole world, Trump’s advisors will have to really go some.
Quoting norman markowitz:
After those victories [of Clinton and the Democratic Party], it will become possible to advance an anti-imperialist foreign policy...
Ah Mark. You have forgotten US History’s most important lesson. With the exception of FDR, Democrats have NOT made good on their promises to right our wrongs. They’ve picked at the bones of big business, but not too enthusiasticall y. They’ve increased not discouraged the subsidizing of big oil, W Clinton killed Glass-Steagall for big banking, and even with idealistic JFK at the helm, they didn’t make even a small dent in the MIC.
-17 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 15:41
And Trump's SCOTUS - he's already given a list - versus Clinton's probable appointments?! The same?!

Pure bolleaux!

Women's rights, LGBTQ rights (even for deserters) and so much more is on the line

And you and your tiny cabal would put all that on the line? To satisfy your impotent rage against progressives who dared to be pragmatic and actually win elections?!

Can you spell S-E-L-F-I-S-H ?
+9 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 16:06
You think you're so smart but you are a craven dupe.
-15 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 16:28
I don't THINK I'm so smart. This is no time for false modesty - I know that I AM reasonably smart.

I am neither craven. Nor a dupe.

You appear to be drifting into insults over coherent argument.

Please remind me again how a Trump-appointed SCOTUS overturning Roe V Wade will help women

Or perhaps you don't care about women?

Then please remind me again how a Trump-appointed SCOTUS overturning more provisions of the Affordable Care Act will help the disadvantaged?

Real Americans are waiting for your answer…

(Well not in this little nook of a nook of a nook of the internet. But in the Real World where grown up real progressives live and fight for a decent - albeit imperfect - world)

Join us sometime. It really is better than the mental wanking of the smug Left
+11 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 18:18
If you're so (self-declared) brilliant then why are you supporting a corporatist warmonger who lies, cheats and steals? Either you are being fooled or you are equally corrupt. Either way your sanctimony would be laughable .. if only it weren't so dangerous.

And are you saying YOU are a progressive? Sorry, buddy, progressives are NOT voting for a candidate practically salivating for more and bigger wars and her predatory sidekick.

You can CALL yourself anything you want to but your words resoundingly declare you are hopelessly gullible or dangerously unable to assess the evidence. I've found that the people most loudly telling everyone how smart they are aren't very bright, just overconfident, and you fit that to a T.

Your pomposity is merely annoying. Get over yourself, dude. I sure have.
+7 # Bryan 2016-08-27 18:46
''Can you spell S-E-L-F-I-S-H ?''..ask Pious.>>>>>

With all due respect all you talk about is Women's rights, LGBTQ rights, the disadvantaged over and over and over.

I think this is about the 50th time I have pointed out that those people will be the first to bite the dust if the US goes bankrupt or gets in a war with Russia/China or continues its ME war madness.

So who is selfish one here? You seem to only care about certain groups and cant see the big picture because of your obsession with your own personal issues.

It reminds me of one of my play mates as a child who was a little piggy. Our parents went out for dinner one evening and told us children NOT to eat anything before we had our dinner. The minute they were gone she ran to the kitchen grabbed what she thought was the cookie container and ran upstairs with it and before the rest of us got there she had plunged her hand in to get some cookies but the container was the cooking grease jar and all she got was a handful of congealed bacon grease and lard.
+9 # dbrize 2016-08-27 19:57

Speculation improves with a bit of realpolitic mixed in:

1. Roberts is the one who made Obamacare possible and Kennedy has leaned both left and right, proving there is unpredictabilit y inherent in justice selection.

Presidents have frequently regretted appointees, going all the way back to Eisenhower and Earl Warren.

2. With neither party having enough Senate votes to invoke cloture, there is no realistic chance ANY nominee other than center-right or center-left with a bland record will be confirmed.

3. Any nominee perceived to have an advance agenda either right or left is DOA.

Quit frightening the children.
+9 # Anonymot 2016-08-28 03:26
Nope, not a craven dupe, but a paid troll.
Not dumb, just paid to spread pious bias.
+1 # Merlin 2016-08-29 20:42
Anonymot 2016-08-28 03:26
Nope, not a craven dupe, but a paid troll.
Not dumb, just paid to spread pious bias.

Spot on!

rocback leaves and PNP appears. Same tone, same approach. You can hardly tell the difference. Its like magic!
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-30 09:43
There are distinct similarities to rocback. I keep waiting for one of his old tropes to appear, such as Bernie and HRC voting together 93% of the time, but otherwise the tone and self-regard are quite similar, as well as having a moniker that invites wordplay.

Does that mean rocback missed us and came back on his own behalf? Or, more likely, is he on a new mission? (I sure hope lights doesn't show back up.)

Billy Bob was right about the trolls!
+6 # Ted 2016-08-27 18:53
Quoting PragmaticNotPious:
And Trump's SCOTUS - he's already given a list - versus Clinton's probable appointments?! The same?!
Pure bolleaux!
Women's rights, LGBTQ rights (even for deserters) and so much more is on the line
And you and your tiny cabal would put all that on the line? To satisfy your impotent rage against progressives who dared to be pragmatic and actually win elections?!

Can you spell S-E-L-F-I-S-H ?

Yo Pious, think for a minute of what a Stein SCOTUS would look like..

Can you spell an ?
-13 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 20:18
Quoting Ted:

Can you spell ?


+6 # Ted 2016-08-28 13:25
Do you think Abe Lincoln's third party bid was delusional?
-7 # ericlipps 2016-08-28 14:38
Quoting Ted:
Do you think Abe Lincoln's third party bid was delusional?

Lincoln was running in a four-way race on the brink of civil war and in which one of the two "major" parties was already on its deathbed. And Lincoln's party had the support of a lot of big-money capitalist types.

That situation doesn't apply here.
-34 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 11:08
Oh yes! That would work!!!

We all well recall Presidents John Anderson, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader!

It's not that your idea is bad. It isn't. But it will NOT happen.

Agitate all you like between presidential elections. It's important to do.

But like it or not - personally I don't - but in our system we DO end up with a binary choice.

And the result - THIS YEAR - of Utopians voting for Stein will be the same outcome as when Utopians voted for Nader for in 2000.

Now Glenn Greenwald from the comfort of his chaise longue on a Rio beach will tell you that there would have been no difference between President Al Gore and what we got with President George W. Bush.

With all due respect - that is B.S. And every single reader KNOWS that. Except the purist "burn down the mission" crowd. Who would rather defeat Hillary and pretend to suffer Trump.

It's sad perhaps - but there is NO credible alternative to voting for Hillary and to encouraging all our friends and family to do the same.

So I reject Glenn Greenwald's de facto pro-Trumpism.

Vote for Hillary. The only credible REALISTIC choice for decent progressives...
+29 # Ted 2016-08-27 12:23
Oh my goodness the Nader lie again.

Listen, we're people of average intelligence here so the whole false Nader spin isn't gonna help your pro-clinton argument very much. No credibility there.
-27 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 13:13
[quote name="Ted"]Oh my goodness the Nader lie again.]

Oh yes - you're quite right.

I had a terrible nightmare that President Al Gore lost the 2000 election because of deluded idiots who voted for Ralph Nader. And we ended up with that crazy coke head George W. Bush as president for 8 years - pushed by neo-con hawks into invading Iraq!

Thankfully that didn't happen! And our votes for Ralph Nader didn't prevent the defeat if George W. Bush.

(Apologies for bringing reality into this forum. I realize it's very uncomfortable for the hard-of-thinkin g)
+17 # curmudgeon 2016-08-27 14:51
Too bad you forget that Gore had actually won...but cravenly rolled over and conceded before the votes were ALL counted.
-14 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 15:43
A tiny thing called SCOTUS.

And you think we'll be better off under a Trump SCOTUS

hashtag: GalacticDelusio n
-3 # lfeuille 2016-08-27 18:26
This is true, but if Nader had stayed out of Florida like he promised, Gore would have won outright. No recount needed. No excuse for SCOTUS to get involved. There were many reasons for the disaster of 2000. Nader was one of them.
+4 # Ted 2016-08-27 18:55
Nonsense. There was SOO much more involved than Nader. He's just the scapegoat.
-4 # ericlipps 2016-08-28 14:41
Quoting curmudgeon:
Too bad you forget that Gore had actually won...but cravenly rolled over and conceded before the votes were ALL counted.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the votes were NEVER going to ALL be counted. Gore knew that. He knew the fix was in.
+5 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-28 06:55
And it is just unbelievable that Gore may have invaded Iraq, isn't it? Did he oppose WJC's sanctions and bombings, resulting in another 1/2 million dead Iraqi children? Does he not now support HRC's candidacy though she supported W's wars as well as Obama's? We are supposed to believe that he would have become a force for peace only if he had been President?
+4 # Merlin 2016-08-29 20:50
AshamedAmerican 2016-08-28 06:55
Spot on!

All this is conveniently overlooked by "democrats." Gore was right there supporting the DLC and all its objectives even before he became VP. The view held by the "democrats" that Gore is this "wonderful guy" is pure fantasy.
+18 # jimmyjames 2016-08-27 12:31
Maybe we would prefer to recall Abraham Lincoln, who joined a "third party", which became known as the Republican Party, and became one of our most famous Presidents?
+4 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 15:20
Oh dear, jj. Are you under the mistaken impression that PompousAndStoop id is interested in facts?

If you read the posts a little more closely you'll find it's dimwitted self-aggrandize ment that's the appeal.

PompousOrOtherPutrefactions (POOP) is a figment of its own imagination, thinking it's a brilliant political thinker while actually spouting off exactly what TPTB want to hear.

It would be sad and pathetic if it weren't so darned obnoxious and puffed up.
+6 # Merlin 2016-08-27 15:52
librarian1984 2016-08-27 15:20

Actually, i see P&S as rocbac with a new set of clothes. Same style, same tone, same agenda, and speaking from the same bible.

It is a troll, and not worthy of a serious argument. Make fun of it, ridicule it and laugh at it, but never take it seriously!
-3 # Caliban 2016-08-28 01:49
Terrible advice for a serious site like RSN, Merlin. Everybody deserves a thoughtful response here.
+4 # lfeuille 2016-08-27 18:34
The situation today is a far cry from the situation before the civil war. It is not nearly divisive enough to lead to a new party. And, you will note, the Republican Party did not create a viable third party. It replaced an existing party.

I'm all for protest votes in this election. Both of the major choices are disasters. But people should own up to what they are doing. If the election turns out to be close votes for Johnson and or Stein can shift the election to the other major candidate. I think Hillary is marginally worse than Trump because of her documented record of encouraging regime change and her callousness to the hardship her endless war policy inflicts on the local populations so I can live with the outcome if it comes to that, but denying it is cowardly.
-3 # ericlipps 2016-08-28 14:42
Quoting jimmyjames:
Maybe we would prefer to recall Abraham Lincoln, who joined a "third party", which became known as the Republican Party, and became one of our most famous Presidents?

See my post above re Lincoln's election.
+29 # djnova50 2016-08-27 12:31
Glenn Greenwald is not being pro-Trump. He is being a journalist. It's a shame more reporters can't be journalists as well.
-31 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 12:49
Quoting djnova50:
Glenn Greenwald is not being pro-Trump. He is being a journalist. It's a shame more reporters can't be journalists as well.

Quoting djnova50:
Glenn Greenwald is not being pro-Trump. He is being a journalist. It's a shame more reporters can't be journalists as well.

He's being a deckchair agitator. Quite pompously, pettily, self-aggrandizi ngly and needlessly. From his ritzy Rio love-nest And doing everything he can to try to prevent Hillary Clinton becoming president. All under the gossamer-thin veneer of being a selfless concerned ethical journalist.

Don't expect regret or apologies from him from his beach-adjacent shangri-la in the event of a Trump victory that devastates real people who live in the USA. His bed is rather well-made. He lives as high as Mount Snow-den. (puns intended)
+11 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-27 15:21
@PNP - You’d be more convincing if your ratio of facts to pejoratives were 8:1 instead of the reverse. Oh well. At least you got the Rio de Janeiro part right.
+3 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 15:56
Quoting PreciouslyUnSelfAware:
He's being a deckchair agitator. Quite pompously, pettily, self-aggrandizingly and needlessly .... (puns intended.)

oh hahahaha

Hypocrisy intended too, PompousAndPuffe dUp?
+8 # Billsy 2016-08-27 14:39
Apparently the poster is unaware that the 3rd party spoiler trope has been well & long refuted by political science studies. Particularly in the case of Bush vs Gore. Fact 1: Nader received Republican votes. These would not have gone to Gore had Nader not been on the ballot. Fact 2: One third of registered democrats in FL didn't even bother to vote. One suspects that had some effect eh? Fact 3: The SCOTUS made an intellectually sloppy decision to halt the FL recount. Not very states' rights supportive of them. Fact 4: Gore failed to contest the vote tally which we now know was a fatal error; he won the popular vote in FL by a slim but decisive margin. The defenses of Clinton's candidacy continue to be based more on irrational fear of a Trump presidency (his candidacy and poll results are in shreds) Ultimately the poster then relies on ad-hominem attacks on Greenwald and snarky insults to the readership, thus earning the title of troll, best to be consigned to the ignominious end of being ignored. Not even thumbs down folks. Simply IGNORED.
# Guest 2016-08-27 14:41
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+25 # futhark 2016-08-27 12:47
Donations to the Clinton Foundation are doubtless made in the expectation that they will lubricate the continuing flow of weapons purchased from the United States for military action against those perceived to be a threat to the hegemony of the Saudis over the Arabian Peninsula during the anticipated Hillary Rodham Clinton administration.
-23 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 13:04
Yeah - those millions of selfish AIDS and malaria patients should give back the drugs that were purchased with tainted money from the charity of those demonic evil Clintons!

Go Glenn! Your anti-Clinton crusade could help not just condemn Americans to decades of a Trump-led SCOTUS - but also kill off millions of kids in Africa.

Not a huge concern for you as you lounge on a Rio beach sucking on a giant margarita...
# Guest 2016-08-27 14:54
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
# Guest 2016-08-27 14:55
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
# Guest 2016-08-27 14:55
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+7 # curmudgeon 2016-08-27 14:55
You should take a long look in the mirror will see one of the proverbial 'Sleeping Sheepies " of the U.S.

A homophobic and trolling agitator of the Nth degree
+2 # librarian1984 2016-08-27 16:00
At least the Clintons are getting power and money from their actions. What is your excuse? Are you just in it for the joy of being a cautionary tale to people who actually think?
+17 # Anarchist 23 2016-08-27 13:37
What was once the USA has now become a corrupted always was corrupt but whatever manifested as 'the Spirit of 1776' is as dead as the DoDo. Now the corporate vultures are fighting over the meat, which is what we all are...not 'citizens' but corporate meat units, to be ground up for profit and thrown away for dead. I don't think Mein Drumpf has any chance of being elected and I don't think HRC will turn us toward the course of sanity, so needed given our global conditions. The USSA, as it now much red tape, imprisonment, poverty, squalor, and homelessness... does not know its own history and stumbles blindly in the morass of its own making.
+2 # jimmyjames 2016-08-27 13:42
Must watch for Hillary supporters:
+5 # djnova50 2016-08-27 14:37
Hi Jimmy, I watched the video and I think I've seen it before. I don't know if it will impact Hillary supporters or not. They might just not care that Hillary is corrupt. The only thing I can sense from the few local Hillary supporters is that she is not Trump.

It's sad that there are some people who consider not being Trump as a reason to vote for a candidate.
+9 # tigerlillie 2016-08-27 14:18
Excellent article, and its' effectiveness can be measured by the number of personal attacks on Greenwald that have been launched in response.

Is it not also true that the Foundation only has to spend 3% of its funds on charitable endeavors in order to maintain its nonprofit status? Does anyone know what the conditions are for determining who can access the rest of the money, and if there are any restrictions on how it is spent? This info could potentially be a very telling indication of the degree of corruption within the Foundation.
+10 # Billsy 2016-08-27 14:44
Right on Tigerlillie! Whenever a commenter devolves into snark, sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks they verify their lack of knowledge and critical thought capacity, revealing instead an emotional al attachment to their own usually misguided and misinformed beliefs. Sadly it seems to be turning off a number of thoughtful readers from participating in these forums.
-12 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 15:49
Quoting Billsy:
they verify their lack of knowledge…

I think you meant to type:

"he/she verifies his/her lack of knowledge"

Presumably such as elemental knowledge of grammar...
+2 # Ted 2016-08-28 13:29
Actually I've recently read about the renewed acceptance of the singular plural to avoid the mandated genderism literary flaw that we have grown away from.

It's always been correct grammar but seemed to have fallen out of use with the rise of psuedo-intellectualism.

Seems fairly pragmatic to me.
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-28 20:13
Oh that can't be right, Ted. PompousAndObnox ious is a (self-declared) genius, remember?
+17 # Mainiac 2016-08-27 14:44
PragmaticNotPio us: Two things. The NYTimes, LA Times and Washington Post hired a firm in 2001 to review the vote in Florida. It was found that had there been a recount of the vote statewide, Gore would have been declared the winner. But the results got pushed to one side as 9/11 got our attention at that time.

In regard to Clinton Foundation good works, let me report that I just signed a petition started by Paul Farmer’s Partner In Health organization that asks the UN to undertake the measures needed to stop the epidemic of cholera in Haiti that got started when UN troops were brought into Haiti in 2010. If there is any place on earth that the Clinton are more obligated to help than Haiti, please let me know where it is. The Foundation could make a big start at wiping out this particular epidemic with just one or two billions of money donated to it by the Saudis.
-12 # PragmaticNotPious 2016-08-27 15:57
Good luck with a Trump administration or a "Trump Foundation" assisting the Third World with a fraction of the generosity and concern of the Clintons.

Gore's mistake was not proclaiming his pride in being part of the Clinton administration - with a tiny caveat about a couple of purely personal human flaws that were no one's business but that of Bill & Hillary.

If he had accepted Clinton's offer yo campaign hard for him (instead of being psyched out by Karl Rove) and if clusters of pious progressives hadn't bleated onto Nader - things would have even different.

It also would have helped if Gore's buddy Bob Schrum hadn't been such a computer-illite rate dork
-6 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-27 21:49
Mainiac 2016-08-27 14:44

(1) Do you reference the Clintons' sharing responsibility for the tragedy of Haiti?

(2) You wrote: "It was found that had there been a recount of the vote statewide, Gore would have been declared the winner." Alas, then (2001) was too late, partly because of the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision, partly because of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1 AND 3 U.S.C. 15.
-4 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-28 03:44
Is the reason my identity or a dislike of truth? I mean the red minus-numbers.

Research the Clinton Foundation and Haiti. See how the Clintons helped create the pain of the Haitian people.

Bush v. Gore, Article II, Section 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 15?

Bush v. Gore was a Supreme Court decision premised much on interpretation of parts of the Constitution. No mere Congressional Act could overturn those premises — despite the fallaciousness of the interpretation. The decision made Bush president.

3 U.S. Code § 15 interprets U.S. Constitution Article II, § 1, clauses 2 and 3 and realizes those provisions in legislative process.

3 U.S. Code § 15 provides a process of counting votes of the Electoral College. It provides also for objections that could lead to determination that the apparent election winner is not the winner.

3 U.S. Code § 15 incorporates 3 U.S. Code § 7, which requires that the Electors shall render votes by the "first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment." Thereafter, 3 U.S. Code §§ 15 and 6 indicate [my distillation] that the Senate and House must process any objections expeditiously enough to determine the winner before inauguration day, 20 January of the year after the election year.

Late October or early November 2001, the NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post found that Gore won Florida.

That time was too late for remedy.
-3 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-27 19:36
At last, Reader Supported News gestures toward real journalism, rather than pro-Clinton yellow journalistic propaganda.

I suggested a near-identical Intercept article yesterday.
See my 2016-08-26 14:55 comment at
AND my 2016-08-26 17:42 comment at
AND my 2016-08-26 16:43 comment at

All those comments compared RSN's recent yellow journalism with Lee Fang's excellent, real journalism piece "Democratic Pundits Downplay Serious Ethical Issues Raised by the Clinton Foundation" (26 August 2016, 7:16 a.m.),

But RSN's gesture is much too little, far too late, and cannot excuse the increasing number of pro-Clinton yellow journalistic propaganda articles RSN has been publishing, even again today:
-5 # bubbiesue 2016-08-27 23:23
Not saying I support the Saudis--perish forbid! But I have noticed they have left considerable amounts of money in U.S. colleges and universities in the name of supporting learning of something related to the Arab world--language , religion, culture, etc. So why not the Clinton Fdn., which at least does some tangible good in this world. The U.S. has a love-hate relationship with the Saudis anyway so I just view this as one more step.
-2 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-28 00:46
Whom would YOU choose?

-2 # ericlipps 2016-08-28 14:07
The question shouldn't be "Why are the Saudis contributing money to the Clinton Foundation" but rather "What are the Clintons' motives in taking the money?"

Those who see Bill and Hillary Clinton as archfiends will have no trouble answering the latter question, of course. But then a new question arises: "What do the Saudis actually get for their money?"

My guess would be that they get considerably less than Israel can get just by having the right people make a few phone calls.

If you want to know where the Saudis really get their influence, just ask Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, known as "Bandar Bush" for his intimacy with that family. Or ask people who know about the cozy relationship between U.S. oil companies and the Saudi royals.
-1 # furlingame 2016-08-28 20:36
I think this is dickish: you highlight the most obvious example to make your point, but there are many programs benefited by the Foundation - halting the spread of HIV as a more objective example - that would certainly and significantly assist these middle-eastern countries regardless of alignment
-1 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-28 21:54

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.