Skip to main content

View Diary: Corruption scandal brewing at Clinton State Dept. over Tar Sands Review (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A scandal requires some wrongdoing, doesn't it? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not beating ANY drum or no more than you are anyway.
    What I'm sayin has nothing at all to do with the regulatory or administrative process, nor does this diary other than calling it corrupt.
    The title of this dary is "Corrupttion Scandal brewing......."
    IN order to use the term corruption or scandal, some wrongdoing is implied. EVERY scandal has some allleged wrongdoing at the bottom of it, be it a burglary or a blowjob or its not a scandal---its a normal event.
     I am asking---and haven't been answered yet by you or anyone else---for simple proof----no not even that, for believable accusations of corruption in the "evidence" presented here.
    If you think that there is anything in the offered text of the diary that constitutes proof or even a believable allegation that there is conrrruption in this affair than point to it---quote it!!

    “It’s precisely because you have connections that you’re sought after and hired,” offered as praise for Elliot’s work

    The article calls it "damning evidence" Damning evidence of what? What is that "damning evidence of? You don't know and neither does anyone else because you don't know the context it was taken out of unless youve read the emails in question. Have you?. Or have you just read the quotes here?  I was hoping the Repugs and Tea PArtiers were the only ones damning with innuendoes and taking things out of context. Another illusion dies hard.
    Just like all these other one sentence quotes here. If you don't know the context, i.e. haven't read the whole email you don't know if thats "damning" or not or what its evidence of. That she likes Ellliot IS NOT ILLEGAL! Its not even improper unless it can be proven That one or the other profited from the relationship in an ilegal manner---THATS why questions of legallity are important. I couldn't imagine an attorney arguing that questions of legality aren't important but here you are.
    And you know as well as me there's no"damning evidence' here or at least it hasn't been presented yet. Or point to it and explain why its "damning."

     None of these one sentence lines is any "damning proof" just because Mother Jones says it is. Look beyond the hyperbole and the desire to throw mud on the Obama administration..

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:02:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong: Cheney Inviting Oil Lobbyist To WH (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beach babe in fl

      There was quite a scandal with Cheney inviting in oil lobbyists to consult about energy policy. What was scandalous was who was involved in setting energy policy, not that the scandal derived from Cheney committing a crime. The same also goes for the fake reporter in the Bush WH press room, which that wasn't illegal, but was highly scandalous. Any number of past scandals haven't been considered scandalous because an alleged crime took place, but have been considered scandals for other reasons.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site