Yes it does to me. If they invite many former secretaries of state it seems reasonable to invite this one. Who cares what she's currently working on if that's not why she was invited? The article even says she hardly mentioned her candidacy.
If you're desperate to get worked up about this I can see where you would find the problem, but I think a charitable interpretation is a former secretary of state was invited to talk like many others were.
Indeed.
If you trust her, you may not see a problem, but if you don't trust her, it's easy to argue this is disguised bribery.
There's a huge difference between a former secretary of state with no prospects of power in the future and someone everyone knew would run for President in a few years.
It's a very thin line, this game.
Clinton should have recused herself from all Clinton Global Initiative issues a long time ago.
The massive Clinton fund with millions in donations from all sorts of political actors, mostly in nefarious places, is worse than Trump's excuses for not releasing his taxes (which he should definitely do).
A) Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Katie Couric - and many others - are all members of the press who are supposed to objectively vet candidates, and who will/have moderated political debates, were previously listed as a 'Notable Members' the Clinton Foundation. [1]
B) More than 1/2 of the private entities she met with while Sec of State donated to her Fund - total over $50M. Foreign governments with whom she dealt with directly gave her fund over $170M - this is just the first 1/2 of her term. That's a serious conflict of interest. "Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she (Clinton, as Sec. State) and her top aides (again government officials) had with foundation donors." [2]
C) Clinton put someone on a government board (security related) - who had no experience in the field. [3]
It's a long list.
[1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-list...
[2] http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5...
[3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...
> a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...
How was that related to nuclear proliferation?
And while you're at it, could you also explain why a lawyer, who rose to prominence as Bill Clinton's defense attorney, was the one choosing networking experts for a nuclear proliferation committee?
I'm not sure it matters who is doing the choosing. It's rarely an objective process that selects members for committees like this, rather just a matter of who you know and being in the right place at the right time.
> The Secretary of State's International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) provides the Department with independent insight and advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy
http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/index.htm
Please explain how high frequency trading relates to "arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy".
He was appointed in 2011.
I think you just made up this mythical expansion to include other expertise, or you're trusting a cover story someone else invented, because the board's role doesn't seem to have actually expanded.
> Board members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic, and political backgrounds
Strange that they don't mention trading, or networks, or even finance or technology.
But let me give you the benefit of the doubt. If they were looking for his expertise, they must have looked for someone else with that expertise after the scandal. Who did they find instead of him?
Because if you receive piles of money while running for president, and then pass on favours after getting it, we call that 'bribery'.
I don't want to sound mean spirited, but your position is incredibly naive.
That she is running for president is extremely relevant.
Same for all politicos.
OK, so why are such articles only written for hillary? Why are you so adamantly opposed to Hillary's practices when it is so incredibly common. How much of all this is about corruption and how much is it about bullying females?
A) Is running for President B) Is married to an ex-President, and the most influential man in the world. C) Has a $500M slush-fund into which money from nefarious places is being invested - and it's not controlled by campaign spending laws. D) Money was given to her from individuals (more than 50% of them) that she was dealing with as Sec of State - which is a massive conflict of interest on it's own, and she did give many favours that we know about, and it's just the top of the iceberg. E) She was brought up in the article. F) Is probably the highest paid circuit speaker in the world, or was, up until recently.
None of the above is true for anyone else.
That's why.
As far are your 'picking on women' bit ... oh please, this kind of argument makes my skin crawl. Corruption can't hide behind panties, at least outside of campus 'safe zones' where the facts don't matter. 'But she's a girl' is not an argument.
[1] https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillar...
The 'Clinton Fund' doesn't give any money away, the operate their own missions and programs - meaning that - of that 88% , any amount can go to 'consultants' 'lawyers' 'research' 'friends' 'conferences' etc.. And it does. That's a lot of money to spend - and 100% of those people work directly for Clinton Corp..
> High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
That doesn't seem like wrongdoing to you?
As opposed to who? Trump? Aren't enough negative articles also written for Trump? Besides he is so rich that he doesn't needed "meagre" 250K speeches to influence him -- he probably has voting favors for his business partners and his own business interests pre-planned already.
>Why are you so adamantly opposed to Hillary's practices when it is so incredibly common.
Because even if another 100,000 politicians do it, she's the one who'll be probably sitting in the White House...
You'd rather people prioritize criticizing some second rate senator from Alabama or South Dakota, or the potential next President?
>How much of all this is about corruption and how much is it about bullying females?
The latter none at all? Else we'd see it for other female politicians too.
Hillary's emails? Potential mishandling of classified information, violations of record keeping laws, and perjury. That's significant, and has nothing to do with her gender.
Which investigation do you think was mere bullying and not about something significant?
I, on the other hand, could not care less for either candidate, I'm not voting there anyway.
Female politicians are just hit with some special charges related to their sex. But male and female politicians are hit with all kinds of shit all the time. Compared to the avalanche of accusations that go to both, having some special accusations because you're a woman politician is not much. Plus, in the current PC climate, most respected outlets don't do that at all -- it's down to the "yellow press" so to speak to do that.
(Besides most, if not all, deserve to be called all kinds of shit anyway, as they are crappy politicians, male or female).
Get of of HN and back to Jezebel.
The position that females face 'bullying' every day in business and politics is beyond false. It's that kind of rubbish narrative that drives otherwise normal people to vote for a crazy person like Trump.