AMERICAblog: Bill Clinton will release identity of donors; Hillary to be announced as Sec of State on Monday (reportedly)
bumpkis
· 12 months ago
Has anyone seen any pushback on on this?
Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Essentially, you cannot take a job if the salary was increased during your current congressional term. And the salary for cabinet officials has gone up in the past year. Even if it is lowered back down, constitutional scholars say that may not be enough to fix the problem.
The question is whether this would be an issue at confirmation - if Clinton is nominated to the post - and who would raise it. Senators traditionally grant their colleagues some deference and it could be considered politics at its worst if Republicans try to block her nomination with this argument. But senators may be loathe to vote for something scholars tell them is unconstitutional.
But the moment Obama makes the nomination, he violates the Constitution.
red_dwarf
· 12 months ago
Considering the thousands of laws broken by the rePIGlicans, this seems trivial. Hell, Big Dick was resident in TX, and quickly had it changed to WY, to become VP. Obama has already violated the Constituion dozens of times, so nothing new (FISA, War, etc).
I just hope when Hillary talks to foreign leaders she doesn't talk to them as if they were 4th graders (which is my interpretation of most of her speaches -she drives me crazy listening to her). Condi Rice was a lying whore, I can't go that far with Hillary - so at least we're better off.
Indigo
· 12 months ago
I've read that the point can be made mute by reducing her salary to the earlier level. She'll manage.
DougStamate
· 12 months ago
This has occurred before and was handled by Congress passing a law that the nominee was to receive the salary that was in effect before the raise. I don't believe that anyone has ever challenged this in court and really doubt that even the Supreme Court would rule against such a law. The prohibition was, if I remember my reading correctly, to prevent the bribing of members of Congress by the Executive. Notice that the prohibition bans members of Congress from accepting a position in any branch of the government that was created during their term of office as well as positions that had their "emoluments" increased.
Rab
· 12 months ago
Hello everyone, wanna get sick? Don't look at this then:
"In an interview with his younger sister, Doro Bush Koch, the president said he was forced to make several difficult choices during his tenure in the White House, but added "I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice [my] values."
"Interview with his younger sister..." Give me an effing break...
Indigo
· 12 months ago
Hillary!
mmedefarge
· 12 months ago
this bums me out so much. I had hoped we had seen the last of the Clintons---now they will be prancing around on the world stage. Is there also no conflict of interest with the hedge fund manager role of the daughter?
cowboyneok
· 12 months ago
According to my close friend who married a British guy and lives in London, the world already likes us again. The day of the election... she said she now tells people she is American again, after eight years of lying she was from "Manitoba, Canada." We are back...
RevDrBillyBob
· 12 months ago
Two points: (1) She was wise to marry Bill. If she hadn't married Bill, she'd be just another rich lawyer who talks like a liberal and who represents multi-national polluters and "investors," and (2) She has been a dogged supporter of the war in Iraq (even though she has pretended otherwise ... how does she VOTE in the Senate ? Hello?), her appointment and the continued tenure of Gates at Defense sends a clear message to the world that there will be NO change in US foreign and military policy in an Obama Administration (i.e., = McCain Administration) . ... Hate to say "I told ya so," but ... I told ya so.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 12 months ago
Hillary can do far less damage to Obama as SoS than if she were in the Senate blocking his progress. This is a brilliant move on his part and will be also smart for her. Her day in the spotlight is over. SoS will keep her away from Congress where she would do much more damage. And yes, Mr President, the consort royal is loved around the world so this is a smart move. After 8 years of a Chimpanzee Cowboy hootin and hollerin his yeehah foreign policy, the world must be breathing some kind of sigh of relief. Oh and GO BOBBY JINDAL AND CARIBOU BARBIE in 2012...that oughta really bury the GOP for good!
cowboyneok
· 12 months ago
agreed.
Litterbox
· 12 months ago
Why do we have to accept this? Bill Clinton refusing to release his donors should be a red flag that there will be "baggage" with the Clintons. We would be sitting here shreiking about it if it was a Republican. Im personally sick of the Clintons and I used to be Bills biggest supporter. After the primaries and watching Hillary lie through her teeth, I actually had to admit to a very disliked enemy of mine in another forum that he had been right about Hillary being a nasty do-anything-to-win bitch. Bill wasnt much better. And frankly I dont think Im the only one that is sick of the Clintons at this point. When I cast my vote for Obama, I wanted HIM and his ideals and thoughts and visions to help carry our nation forward. I didnt want him to expound so much time finding a place for Hillary. I just hope that he has the balls to keep her in check and not let her push her own agenda or undermine Obamas in some way. As for the world liking us again, I believe that happened on election day and it didnt have shit to do with Clinton.
Litterbox
DougStamate
· 12 months ago
If my understanding is correct, under the present law Mr. Clinton is not required to reveal the donors. No former (or future-former) president is. Undoubtedly there are some donors on the list that may take some heat for donating. And Mr. Clinton may take some heat for accepting some of the donations. It is also probable that some foreign donors made their donations while counting on the fact that they weren't to be named. Is the list actually going to be published or is it simply going to be "vetted" by Mr. Obama's team to prevent any future embarassments or accusations of national or international "favoritism"?
Older_Wiser
· 12 months ago
It's amazing that having so little, we settle for even less. Hillary may do OK, but only with severe guidance; I don't see any real peacemakers around.
And as far as Bill revealing his contributors, it won't matter who they are--after all, DC is a cesspool and will accept anything and/or any explanation...
cowboyneok
· 12 months ago
Oh, come on now folks. Surely, you aren't naive enough tho think those leaders at the top of the heap aren't all connected in one way or another. Its ALWAYS a question of lesser of two evils, and we got that with Obama. Be HAPPY we will get better and less compromised people at the bottom of the totem poll, and progressive judges. For many of us, its about the judges and WE WON the election and will get progressive decisions. Thank G-d, Clinton isn't President. Its Lemon-Aid! Stir it, sip it and enjoy... Lets put our energy into something constructive like ensuring our civil rights and promises are kept in areas where they CAN BE kept. Keep fighting for THE POSSIBLE. That is what politics really is, right? The art of the possible? When politicians get that high up in politics, you can't trust 'em but it can ALWAYS be worse. It could be McThesuleh - Palin making decisions right now.
I'm just PRAYING the Obama's, now they have the red carpet rolled out to join the country club set, don't entirely forget where they came from. Also, that they don't develop an "us against them" attitude towards other marginalized communities. I'm hoping and praying they remember the lessons of Martin Luther King. I know Barack and Michelle BOTH did a lot of studying his words.
katiekat489
· 12 months ago
This really is not what I was looking for in change. I truly am sick and tired of the Clintons and have been for a long time. What exactly is the change here? I understand Gates for a while but do not agree with this. I am surprised at how this really is a deal breaker for me . Have been so supportive and excited about Obama for so long and this just really just has left a really bad feeling for me. To watch them traipse around and do their schtick is too much.
mmedefarge
· 12 months ago
hearing that Obama was going to name Hillary as SoS was a real shock. When I got an email from the campaign asking me for a contribution to the transition, I wrote back and told them why I could not in good conscience give money to an effort that included Hillary (and people like Summers}. I guess they read it, because I have not received any requests for money for a couple of weeks. It was a real struggle for me to give as much as I did, but it was probably such a tiny drop in the bucket for them.
RitornaVincitor
· 12 months ago
Imagine what it will mean to have someone competent as SoS. Look at all the appointments Obama is making. How long has it been since we've seen competent people in office?
RitornaVincitor
· 12 months ago
It's great to see competent people in office. One by one Obama is picking the best. I know a lot of people are still bitter over Hillary, but hey, she lost, and her supporters have been able to move on. So should the rest of us.
Twila
· 12 months ago
Hillary's supporters got over her loss and got behind Obama. Obama's supporters should get over their bitterness about Hillary and move on.
KenStarr
· 12 months ago
Does this mean Drinkey McAwol will release the names of the donors (FOREIGN and domestic) to his library...?
(Last February) President Bush said (his) library would "probably take some foreign money," but the policy hadn't yet been developed. As for disclosing contributors, "We'll look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision," he said. "There's a lot of people -- or some people; I shouldn't say 'a lot' -- some people who like to give and don't particularly want their names disclosed, whether it be for this foundation or any other foundation. And so we'll take that into consideration."
It's amazing, is it not. Bill Clinton must release the names of anonymous donors to his privately run charity, yet the Department of the Treasury doesn't have to come across with the names of companies who have received heaps and heaps of public funds.
CPL
· 12 months ago
I wouldn't get excited about this - he's not going to do it until AFTER Hillary's name has been officially announced.
Which means, he can rescind the offer to cooperate with the vetting of Hillary and push Obama into a corner to where he has to go through with this shyt.
ninepatch
· 12 months ago
I don't believe Obama will be able to control the Clinton team of Bill and Hillary. No way is Bill and his joined at the hip, presidential wannabee wife going to buckle under to Obama and play second best. They think they reign . There is trouble ahead with this appointment. I think Obama made a mistake here.
paulbe
· 12 months ago
'Like us again'? Take a bit more than sticking Hillary Clinton in. Try deporting Rahm Emanual back to Israel.
All Comments
Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Essentially, you cannot take a job if the salary was increased during your current congressional term. And the salary for cabinet officials has gone up in the past year. Even if it is lowered back down, constitutional scholars say that may not be enough to fix the problem.
The question is whether this would be an issue at confirmation - if Clinton is nominated to the post - and who would raise it. Senators traditionally grant their colleagues some deference and it could be considered politics at its worst if Republicans try to block her nomination with this argument. But senators may be loathe to vote for something scholars tell them is unconstitutional.
But the moment Obama makes the nomination, he violates the Constitution.
I just hope when Hillary talks to foreign leaders she doesn't talk to them as if they were 4th graders (which is my interpretation of most of her speaches -she drives me crazy listening to her). Condi Rice was a lying whore, I can't go that far with Hillary - so at least we're better off.
I don't believe that anyone has ever challenged this in court and really doubt that even the Supreme Court would rule against such a law.
The prohibition was, if I remember my reading correctly, to prevent the bribing of members of Congress by the Executive. Notice that the prohibition bans members of Congress from accepting a position in any branch of the government that was created during their term of office as well as positions that had their "emoluments" increased.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/28...
"In an interview with his younger sister, Doro Bush Koch, the president said he was forced to make several difficult choices during his tenure in the White House, but added "I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice [my] values."
"Interview with his younger sister..." Give me an effing break...
Litterbox
Undoubtedly there are some donors on the list that may take some heat for donating. And Mr. Clinton may take some heat for accepting some of the donations. It is also probable that some foreign donors made their donations while counting on the fact that they weren't to be named.
Is the list actually going to be published or is it simply going to be "vetted" by Mr. Obama's team to prevent any future embarassments or accusations of national or international "favoritism"?
And as far as Bill revealing his contributors, it won't matter who they are--after all, DC is a cesspool and will accept anything and/or any explanation...
I'm just PRAYING the Obama's, now they have the red carpet rolled out to join the country club set, don't entirely forget where they came from. Also, that they don't develop an "us against them" attitude towards other marginalized communities. I'm hoping and praying they remember the lessons of Martin Luther King. I know Barack and Michelle BOTH did a lot of studying his words.
(Last February) President Bush said (his) library would "probably take some foreign money," but the policy hadn't yet been developed. As for disclosing contributors, "We'll look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision," he said. "There's a lot of people -- or some people; I shouldn't say 'a lot' -- some people who like to give and don't particularly want their names disclosed, whether it be for this foundation or any other foundation. And so we'll take that into consideration."
http://www.propublica.org/article/in-wake-of-lo...
It's amazing, is it not. Bill Clinton must release the names of anonymous donors to his privately run charity, yet the Department of the Treasury doesn't have to come across with the names of companies who have received heaps and heaps of public funds.
Which means, he can rescind the offer to cooperate with the vetting of Hillary and push Obama into a corner to where he has to go through with this shyt.