Saturday, November 05, 2016

I voted

 It is unfortunate that the email issue for Hillary is seen as just about her having a private server-- no big deal to many Americans who rely on mainstream media for their news. It's not about just that. It's about mishandling classified material, lying to Congress, and pay for play. On the mishandling, we now know that documents ended up on Anthony Weiner's computer. He didn't have clearance to have those. It is also reported through a Wikileaks email that Hillary sent some classified material to her daughter. Again no clearance. Mishandling classified materials has put others in jail. Why should she be exempt?

The bigger question though regarding her private server is why she had it. There are relatively innocent reasons (not qualities you want in a President but possible) such as she was paranoid and wanted to be sure no one could use the Freedom of Information Act to access what she wrote or got. There is, however a more insidious possibility-- pay for play.

Here's where you need to be able to add things together, using logic. How do you get wealthy on the pay of a Senator or Secretary of State, even considering the pensions Bill was getting. The Clinton net worth is debated and many sources don't add them together making her sound not so rich. Anyway, here's one take on it.
"The Bill Clinton net worth figure of $100.8 million comes mainly from $189 million in pre-tax dollars from books and speeches plus $25 million in salary. Clinton made $200,000 a year as U.S. President and only $35,000 a year as Governor of Arkansas. All together his salary as a public figure for 25 years comes to just $2.3 million, while he made ten times that in 1/4th the time as Chancellor of for-profit university Laureate Education Inc. and Chairman of the GEMS Foundation. Clinton’s biggest payday by far comes from $140.8 million earned for hundreds of speeches, with payouts for a single speech running as high as $725,000. Clinton has also raked in book royalties estimated at $48 million. That’s a total lifetime earnings of $217 million pretax dollars, with taxes and expenses slicing out over $137 million and investments kicking back $21 million. Combined with the Hillary Clinton net worth sum of $32 million. The Clintons control a fortune of more than $132 million." from a site called Money Nation
The Clintons took no salaries from their foundation, while it drew in donations of $2 billion since he left office. The foundation does the work through their employees-- hence not much is donated elsewhere.  What is said about the Foundation and its benefit runs the gamut from saving lives and curing diseases to a vast criminal organization. You can guess which partisan group takes which view.

So how they got the money was through books, private speeches at high salaries, and consulting fees for him. [Clinton got $18 million just for being a consultant to a private for profit college]. Did he do any work for that salary? He didn't need to as they wanted the connection. Often such organizations or individuals also donated to the foundation.

It's not unusual for politicians to profit that way. It's also not pay for play as such. That comes into the profit taking this way-- you approach someone or they approach you with something they want. You suggest they hire you for speeches or consulting-- plus donate to your foundation. So Clintons get big money and so does the foundation. Where does it become illegal?

Maybe here: The Russian uranium deal was okayed by Clinton's state department and many have wondered why we would sell our uranium to the Russians allowing them to sometimes destroy the natural terrain in the mining? It was even mentioned with the Malheur takeover as a motive for other ranchers being arrested and jailed.

The NY Times also covered that one. If you want to know the accusations based on pay for play, you have to do a google search. The mainstream media is not covering it. They still make it sound like the emails are all about a sweet little woman who just didn't understand computers and hence needed a private server in her basement... one that allowed deleting half the emails that were nothing to do with government *wink wink* and all about yoga and weddings. Only dedicated lefties believe that one.

As someone who voted for Obama twice, donated heavily to his campaign, voted for Bernie in the primary, I think it's better for progressives not to kid ourselves. We don't have to play the game of seeing it all through the Clinton media with their self-designated term-- the vast right wing conspiracy. There is a lot there for those who care but they have to look.  The media, entertainment and supposed news are in the bucket for Hillary. They insult those who would vote for Trump as much as him. They twist headlines, leave out parts of his proposals and it gets repeated across the boards.  Reading a headline and then finding the whole story has often left me furious. Like the suggestion that Trump wanted the Russian government to hack her email to get the missing emails-- it was a joke people, an off the cuff joke, but either the media has no sense of humor or they know most people don't follow up on anything.

That said, it might seem surprising that I had to vote for her in the end based on issues that matter a LOT to me-- things like Supreme Court picks, social issues, but most of all the environment. He did have policies with which I agreed, like on trade but I am not sure he could do what he says he wants. I voted not on ethics, which is questionable for both of them.

I voted for her not trusting her, worrying about her neocon tendencies, that she'll pick more of the foxes to guard the economic house (like Obama did). I worry about her on war, helped along by her strong globalist view.

BUT who would Trump put in a cabinet or on the Court? From who he seems to admire, that was worrisome. He is wrong (in my opinion) on some big issues that matter a lot to me. My inability to vote for him wasn't about the sex as it was with so many. I voted twice for Clinton knowing he was not right in that area. No, for me, it was Trump's lack of interest in being fully informed and where he gets his info on things like climate change. He's said a lot of things about what he'll do, things I'd hate to see him do, and I believe he would try-- so his stand on important right wing issues made him impossible for me to vote for him. I couldn't not vote at all for the Presidency though I considered it. If he won, I'd feel guilty for not doing my small part to stop him. He's like voting for a bull in a china shop. It might turn out all right but what are the odds.

My first presidential election was in 1964. I've always voted and generally liked one of the candidates. This is the first time I felt no pride in my vote. I did what I felt I had to do and hope I've been wrong about her ethics. A lot rides on it. I hope she will be a great president, not cater to the hedge funds, not decimate Social Security, and most of all not get us into a war with her reckless talk like most recently about the Russian government-- where there is no proof they have done the hacking that got the Wikileaks their info. Assange said they hadn't but then who knows... That's the problem this election. Who knows.

I might rant on cultural issues in the future here but am going to try to stay off the outcome of the election. It is what it is.

No comments: