If the Clinton Foundation Were to Seek an Injunction to Prevent Donor Disclosure by a Third Party...

[CorpGovActivist]

Poll question: If the Clinton Foundation Were to Seek an Injunction to Prevent Donor Disclosure by a Third Party...

... would that affect your vote in the primary?

Thanks for registering your opinion.

- Dave

[mmonk]

1. It won't since my candidate isn't a Clinton.

In the general election, I can't afford to let the Republicans win the executive branch without the system being fixed and checks and balances restored. This thus, is my opinion.

[CorpGovActivist]

4. Fair Enough...

... but would it make you more likely or less likely to bring this to "soft Clinton supporters" in your circle of friends and family, perhaps?

- Dave

[mmonk]

46. I just learned one of my friends is a Clinton supporter

but I haven't had the chance to approach him. The rest don't support her in the primaries.

[CorpGovActivist]

50. Is He Amenable to New Facts?

If so, these data points may interest him.

- Dave

[mmonk]

114. We're going to find out soon.

[CorpGovActivist]

118. Please Keep Us Posted on His Reaction n/t

[UTUSN]

2. Ah, Boxing Day, and all I got was more weeks of spam!1 n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

3. From the Data Rich to the Data Poor...

... Happy Boxing Day!

; )

- Dave

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. If the campaign works so hard to hide the donor list, I as a voter must ask why

Even if it was Dennis Kucinich attempting such a move, I would immediately take up campaigning against whatever candidate tried to hide such information. Voters CAN NOT cast an informed vote if we do not know who is buying the election.

[troubleinwinter]

10. It has nothing to do with, and no connection whatever with the campaign.

The OP would like to have you think so. What he is talking about is the William J. Clinton Foundation. A 501(c)(3) non-profit, charitable foundation.

Look it up and look at the foundation's Mission, Purpose and work.

Such foundations generally do not and are not required to make donor identification available.

I haven't a clue what the OP's point is. In four threads related to this, he has never stated what the FUCKING point is.

[CorpGovActivist]

18. The Donor Lists Go back to 1998, When the Clintons Were Still in the White House...

... and span the years during which Senator Clinton has sat as a United States Senator.

As to whether or not the names on the lists have anything to do with voters' judgments about the true rationale for some of her votes, that will be very much in the eye of the beholder, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the names become public.

- Dave

[karynnj]

121. This is a unigue case because no First Lady ever ran before

In the past, an ex-President was out of office so it was not important to consider if he would accept money to push legislation or gain favors. Here, the problem is that someone giving BC over a million dollars secretly for his foundation's use could gain HC's support. We need transparency. If they were smart, they would do this voluntarily. Being President is a unique honor - being the wh for possibly 4th term is an unheard of honor. They should be willing to be as open on issues like this as possible.

[CorpGovActivist]

123. Sui Generis in One Respect...

... garden variety court case, in most others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis

- Dave

[creeksneakers2]

140. While would the Clintons steal money to give away?

If it was a speaker fee or campaign donation or book deal or something like that I can see where somebody might want to know the donors. This is charity. If the Clintons wanted to grant favors in exchange for donations they'd take the money themselves. Why would they steal money to give away?

Almost no charities disclose their donor lists. At one time a group was formed to lobby for a legal requirement that charities release their donor lists. Then a reporter asked the lobby group who their donors were. They refused to say!

Its perfectly legitimate for a wealthy person to make a large charitable donation and want it kept secret. Perhaps he doesn't want his donation advertised because that would attract tons of other solicitations. Perhaps as a matter of conscience he doesn't want to get credit for something he believes he is really doing for himself. Perhaps a well known Republican wants to give to a good cause but doesn't want the other Republicans to find out he gave money to Bill Clinton. There are lots of possible good reasons to request anonymity.

If somebody wants to give away his money for the public good he shouldn't be challenged and scrutinized. That would discourage future donations to worthy charities.

Note that this demand for a donor list is not an accusation against the Clintons. It is a demand for information that the seekers hope will lead them to something they can use against the Clintons later. That is sick! There is an entire industry making millions selling lies about the Clintons already. Why do the Clinton haters need more? Pretty weird. What's really weird about it is that so much information was turned over in the past and no wrongdoing, save a blow job, by the Clintons was ever found. Why why can't Clinton haters at least consider the possibility that the reason nothing was found was because the Clintons are honest?

[CorpGovActivist]

142. Doveryai, no Proveryai - Trust, but Verify n/t

[creeksneakers2]

149. That was one of the dumbest things Reagan ever said

and it had to compete with very heavy competition.

[CorpGovActivist]

150. I'm Sure It Took Him a Long While to Learn to Pronounce It...

... but the Russian proverb itself is a wise and sound one.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

20. "cast an informed vote"

There's a bumper sticker if ever there were one!

: )

- Dave

[gateley]

128. SELF DELETE nt

[bemildred]

6. Private money in elections is bad enough, let alone SECRET private money. nt

[CorpGovActivist]

21. Amen! n/t

[troubleinwinter]

29. I give "secret private money" to such non-profit, charitable organizations all the time. I suspect

you do too. Mostly I give to 501(c)(3) organizations. Donor identification is not public, for the protection of donors (so my employer who manufactures space satellites doesn't know I donate to the Flat Earth Society, so that my pastor and congregation don't know that I give to Pets of Pagans Relief Fund).

The FOUNDATION OP refers to does not have anything to do with elections.

Geez.

[CorpGovActivist]

32. Cui bono?

How many of those 501(c)(3) organizations you give to have affiliated candidates running for political office at any level?

How many bribery cases have you researched in which juries found that the intent of all involved was to exchange favors "off the books" by channeling money through a 501(c)(3) affiliated with a candidate or incumbent?

How many IRS decisions and Federal court cases have you read in which the foundation's disclaimer of "private foundation" status - the determinative factor for whether donors are required to be disclosed or not, in most cases - was not valid, and that disclosure was therefore required?

If you don't have these facts in your corner, you're overgeneralizing.

Strike that: you're overgeneralizing.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

37. Are you making accusations of bribery?

"How many bribery cases have you researched in which juries found that the intent of all involved was to exchange favors "off the books" by channeling money through a 501(c)(3) affiliated with a candidate or incumbent?"

What exactly is the affiliation between the 501(c)(3) and a candidate?

You already stated that there has been no filing to request any donor information by anyone for any reason, right?

[CorpGovActivist]

40. "Bribery" Is Such an Ugly Word to Use at the Holidays

"What exactly is the affiliation between the 501(c)(3) and a candidate?"

In the examples alluded to, it was quite often the spouse of the candidate who had effective control over - and derived significant benefit from - the 501(c)(3). Do some research. You might also refresh your memory regarding how Randy "Duke" Cunningham's operation worked.

"You already stated that there has been no filing to request any donor information by anyone for any reason, right?"

HUH?!? Where are you getting that?

Honestly. We get it. You love Senator Clinton. She walks on water, and can do no wrong. She's never helped mislead us about facts, or her motivations.

What possible harm could it do to reveal the donors' names, have a few stories examine the timeline of legislation that got passed that they had a vested interest in, maybe delve into when Senator Clinton met with them vis-a-vis when the donations came in, etc.?

She's smart. She's capable. She's not the least bit over-programmed by Mark Penn. She can handle this off the cuff, right?

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

49. "Bribery" IS an ugly word. But you invoked it in your post #32.

Your words: "bribery cases"

Are you now claiming that there HAS been a court filing for donor information???

Hahahaha!!!!! "You love Senator Clinton". I'll give you $10,000 if you can show me one post that states that I support HC.

More or less, (not that it's your business) my list at this time is:

Biden
Edwards
Dodd
Kucinich
somebody else
Richardson
somebody else
somebody else
somebody else
Obama
somebody else
somebody else
somebody else
somebody else
somebody else
somebody else
Clinton

No wonder you don't know who my preferred candidate is... I don't post smears of a candidate, as you do.

I haven't requested specific backup and links to your smears because of any support of Clinton, but because I abhore unsubstantiated bullshit posts.

[CorpGovActivist]

53. I Honestly Don't Get Your Beef ...

... and I'm done wasting time trying to help you understand what mine is.

But I will be genuinely interested to hear your take on the donor list data, if/when it comes into full public view.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

59. Me too... I'll be genuinely interested in any actual material you have,

whenever you get around to posting anything of substance, rather than vague innuendo.

"if/when" will that be, do you suppose?

[CorpGovActivist]

63. I'll Send You an Embossed Link...

... don't worry.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

69. But, But ... How Can Anyone Be a Biden Supporter ...

... without understanding how to read between the lines on all his innuendo?

How in the world can you be a Biden supporter without having a fully functioning understanding of - if not downright genuine affection for - every rhetorical device known to humankind?

:rofl:

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

78. You really will do most anything to provide backup for your accusations, won't you?

This isn't a Biden thread. It is a thread related to your innuendos about Clinton's campaign being somehow connected to the Foundation and your hints of Quid Pro Quos and bribery.

You'd rather get off track and accuse me of being Dana Perino, Donald Rumsfeld, wrongly state that I am a Clinton supporter, or discuss my views on Biden.

What you do NOT want to discuss is substantiation of your innuendos.

Could it be because you cannot substantiate them?

Golly gee, if I had legitimate material backing up such accusations against the Clinton campaign, I'd fucking post it everywhere. (I know profanity bothers you, but smears against Dems without some proof, clarity or backup bothers me)

[CorpGovActivist]

80. This Thread Is about Likely Voter Reactions...

... to a possible - maybe even probable - legal maneuver.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

83. Bullshit. This thread is about a unsubstantiated smear. And it's the fourth one.

[CorpGovActivist]

85. Your Powers of Deduction Are...

... astonishingly inaccurate.

Generating heat doesn't always generate light. Or, if you prefer: "certitude is not rectitude."

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

88. No shit "heat doesn't generate light". Your nonsense is proof of it.

All hype and zero facts.

How could I possibly deduce anything at all from your unsubstantiated posts? I rekon I'd have to regard your statements as useful in some manner in order to bother to attempt to deduce anything from them.

You seem to be the one deducing that I am either Rumsfeld or Dana Perino, or both.

[CorpGovActivist]

90. Taking the Data You've Shared to Its Logical Conclusion...

1. You state you're not a Clinton supporter anyway, so it makes little or no sense for me to hasten to provide additional data beyond the redacted versions of the donor lists, just to satisfy your impatience.

2. Assuming you're not the editor or an investigative reporter for an outlet willing to do the necessary fact-checking, it makes even less sense.

At this stage, what can factually be said is:

A. The lists go back to 1998.

B. The lists currently in public view are redacted.

C. Some may find the redacted data of use in making a better-informed vote.

D. The unredacted versions of the lists may soon be public.

If that offends some principle or core belief in your value system, I am at a genuine loss to understand it.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

93. Thanks for caring.

1. You state you're not a Clinton supporter anyway, so it makes little or no sense for me to hasten to provide additional data beyond the redacted versions of the donor lists, just to satisfy your impatience.

... So your only interest is ME?! You have important information that supposedly could effect the votes of DUers and many other voters, but won't post it because it's all about ME?! Wow, I coulda saved you the time of posting all those threads that lack any substance by informing you that I don't support Hillary anyway.

2. Assuming you're not the editor or an investigative reporter for an outlet willing to do the necessary fact-checking, it makes even less sense.

...By golly, the BEST, most DEDICATED and THOROUGH fact checkers I've ever come across are members of the DU community.

No, I guess it's pointless to actually substantiate your assertions unless it's presented to some "news outlet". Truth is inconsequential unless released through proper MSM outlets, or later or never?

At this stage, what can factually be said is:

A. The lists go back to 1998.

B. The lists currently in public view are redacted.

C. Some may find the redacted data of use in making a better-informed vote.

D. The unredacted versions of the lists may soon be public.

...Yippee. It "may soon be public", in the mean time, "un/informed voters" are supposed to react based on your unsubstantiated innuendo?

If that offends some principle or core belief in your value system, I am at a genuine loss to understand it.

I guess my core belief is that if you're going to make assertions of bribery against someone, you should be willing to present the evidence.

[CorpGovActivist]

94. The Thin Line between Influence-Peddling and Outright Bribery...

... is one you see clearly? Making comparisons to cases in which the final verdict was "bribery" and the situation at hand is not the same as making an accusation or an assertion.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

81. P.S. Biden for SecDef n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

71. Do You Think Alaska Senator Ted Stevens - Ranking Appropriations Committee Member - Took Bribes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_stevens#Ethical_issues_and_federal_investigations

If so, then I fail to see how you're applying consistent logic here.

If not, then I suppose I do.

If you're in the "wait and see what the facts show" camp, then I think we're on the same page about both Senators.

- Dave

[creeksneakers2]

144. Are you old enough to remember the 90s?

Are you new at politics? I could write you an essay about why the Clintons shouldn't have to prove their innocence every time somebody who hates them comes up with something the MIGHT MAYBE POSSIBLY COULD HAVE done? If you are new at this I would help you.

[CorpGovActivist]

145. I'm in My Mid-Thirties...

... and could write you a much longer essay on why "trust them" isn't viable to any thinking progressive voter.

- Dave

[creeksneakers2]

141. Most politicians set up charities

If one stole from the charity it was a rare case. Are you an Edwards fan? Didn't he have a charity he used to finance his anti-poverty work? Should we form a grand jury to investigate, not anything specific Edwards might have done, but to make sure he didn't do something we don't know about?

[CorpGovActivist]

143. I Would Urge Edwards to Disclose...

... any and all donor data, just as I urge the Clinton campaign to hasten to do.

- Dave

[bemildred]

48. I can assure you I never give money to organizations run by active politicians

unless it is a campaign for office. There is as much chance of an active politician not noticing where money comes from as there is of Barney the Dinosaur winning the pResidency, i.e. zero.

[CorpGovActivist]

57. The Chinese Wall at the Clinton Dinner Table...

... ensures that no such discussions or information shares take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall

- Dave

[bemildred]

61. Of course not. Who would ever think of such a thing? nt

[CorpGovActivist]

65. A Rational and Informed Voter? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Do you REALLY believe that anything with the Clinton name attached

does NOT have anything to do with politics and elections?

Silly wabbit.

[MonkeyFunk]

99. That would be bad..

but this money isn't going to elections. It's going to a non-profit foundation.

[CorpGovActivist]

100. Sometimes Mafia Money Is Given with No Strings Attached, Too...

... right?

- Dave

[MonkeyFunk]

103. more unfounded smears

from you.

[CorpGovActivist]

104. More Willful Distortion...

... of the intent of the comparison, from you.

If you don't understand similar/disimilar, your local library probably carries Sesame Street on DVD.

- Dave

[paulk]

129. is that kind of like how you don't understand the difference

between innuendo and fact?

[CorpGovActivist]

130. Fact: There Is an Unredacted Version of the Clinton Donor Lists

Do I get a gold star for using it in a sentence correctly?

- Dave

[paulk]

131. and?

When did you stop beating your wife?

???????????????????

[CorpGovActivist]

132. Nothing to See Here...Move Along, PK n/t

[undeterred]

7. Are they doing this?

And is it Rupert Murdoch again?

[CorpGovActivist]

14. Are They Considering It As an Option?

That might be the better question, and I think the answer to that is yes.

How the GOP might have gotten its hands on the donor list data, is anyone's guess, and I suppose Rupert Murdoch is as good a guess as any; however, Occam's Razor would suggest it was probably just as simple as a Treasury Department/IRS "oopsie" leak.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

16. Who's "they"? Who's the "third party" that is supposedly "considering it"?

The "might have". "might have"??? WTF are you claiming?

"it was probably... a Treasury Department/IRS... leak" WHAT LEAK? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!

[CorpGovActivist]

23. You Sure Do Ask a Lot of Questions...

... all the ones except for, "Who's on the lists, and what might they have been quid pro quo'ing with the Clintons?"

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

24. Oh, Oh....

maybe he knows sumthin we don't

[CorpGovActivist]

26. And Probably You Know Something I Don't...

... and we learn from one another by participating in the free marketplace of ideas.

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

28. lol... I Know Nuthin'

But would like to.

[CorpGovActivist]

30. I Doubt You'll Have to Wait Much Longer...

... judging by media interest in viewing the unredacted donor lists.

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

31. Yikes.... Well, Then

my statement in that other thread still stands. Let it all come out. We all need to deal with the truth regardless of how painful and regardless of which candidate. I just want honesty. I'm sick of us all getting screwed.

[CorpGovActivist]

33. I Took a Hearty Swig of Coffee...

... to that sentiment! AMEN!

I'm for informed choice when it comes to exercising the franchise.

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

34. I Know You Are... Thanks

Time for tea for me. Cheers!

[CorpGovActivist]

35. Cheers!

Are you an expat?

Best,

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

39. Nope... Still Here in the States

Love New England

[CorpGovActivist]

41. At This Time of Year?!?

Don't even get me started on how nutty Canucks are.

:rofl:

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

8. If someone repeatedly posts vague innuendo without showing facts, would you take it seriously?

If someone actually had material or facts, would you expect them to put it forth, rather than just slimy vague implications and smear?

After posting at least four threads making vague accusations without stating whatever the fuck you pretend to be saying, do you think it's time to put up or shut up?

Do you think that empty innuendo about a Dem candidate is useful?

If you have some legitimately important information, whip it out and stop playing assinine games.

[CorpGovActivist]

12. If I Were the Candidate in Question, with Access to the Donor Lists...

... yes, I think I would be very worried about the prospect of the data becoming public.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

15. Does the candidate have access to such lists?

If you believe so, please back it up.

Why would it matter, exactly?

Is the candidate on the board of the foundation? No.

Do you have anything whatever to say? Evidently not.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MyNameGoesHere]

9. Another RW talking point rears it's ugly head into DU

Is this not former President Clinton's call? Last i heard it is HIS foundation to oversee as he wishes (and to endure the wrath of critics that just want to see his penis.> , regardless of Fucker Carlson's and the like. Is Fucker still screaming about this non-issue? Please make him stop by switching the channel.

[CorpGovActivist]

11. It's a Logical Fallacy to Say That Just because...

... the GOP is talking about a topic, it should be verboten among Dems during the primary.

"Is this not former President Clinton's call?"

Well, ostensibly (if you believe they're independent), it is the Foundation's governing body's call, if you mean voluntary disclosure by the Foundation.

If you mean involuntary, court-sanctioned disclosure, pursuant to a third party's lawful pursuit of the data, then it is the Federal Courts' call.

"Last i heard it is HIS foundation to oversee as he wishes"

Within the confines of charitable foundation law, yes, he has a great deal of lawfully-limited control.

"<remainder of post>"

*eye roll*

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

13. Is this a hypothetical?

Does anything show that the non-profit charitable foundation seeks an injunction to prevent disclosure as protected by IRS privacy laws?

Got a link?

[CorpGovActivist]

17. I Think It Would Be an "Inadvisable Course of Action,"

... if you're asking what opinion I'd give if I were in that legal war room.

"Does anything show that the non-profit charitable foundation seeks an injunction to prevent disclosure as protected by IRS privacy laws?"

Motions for injunctive relief are in writing, and signed by the attorney(s) bringing the motion. Should such a motion be filed, it would be a matter of public record.

Verbal threats to seek such injunctive relief in the face of possible disclosure by a third party, on the other hand, would not be necessarily public.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

22. I see. There is no such filing, and you have no links at all. No specifics,

just a hypothetical like: "If CorpGovActivist says my dog, Eddie, is from Mars, but provides no backup or clarity, would you be concerned?".

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingshakabobo]

19. Shit or get off the pot.

[CorpGovActivist]

36. The Purpose of the OP...

... is to gauge likely reaction when the s hits the fan.

- Dave

[LWolf]

38. No, because Clinton won't be getting my vote anyway.

That would just add one more reason to the mountainous pile I've already got.

[CorpGovActivist]

42. Would It Be Something You Think You Could Share...

... with "soft-leaning Clinton supporters" in your circle of friends/family, to help them make a better-informed decision?

- Dave

[LWolf]

43. Sure.

If I ever meet a Clinton supporter in person, I will be happy to do so.

None of my circle of family or friends are Clinton supporters. If I run into any at work (where we NEVER talk politics; perhaps there are some there,) or among my neighbors (I have 2), or anywhere else, I will certainly point out, gently, this obstacle along with all the others.

[CorpGovActivist]

45. Snipe Bagging ...

... and Clinton supporter bagging, is very similar.

- Dave

[LWolf]

58. Yes.

Because, as far as I can tell, Clinton supporters on the ground are just as elusive as the snipe. ;)

[CorpGovActivist]

62. And It's Still Fun...

... to take someone new on a snipe hunt.

:rofl:

(Although, we did leave my brother in the woods at my grandparents' until dusk one time, and got in some major trouble.)

- Dave

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. really? Lots of people I know are

I also have lots of friends who were Obama supporters, until they sat down and saw his history, and realized he really is all talk and no action.

I have friends who looked at Richardson and decided that, although he has great foreign relations experience, he would not make a good President.

I have friends who looked at Biden, and saw that he is wrong in Iraq and that separating it into three governments would not work.

I have lots of friends who saw the vote for Kyl-Leiberman for what it was: a threat to Iran--we know what you are doing, knock it off,

Lots of people I know support Clinton.

And believe that when they give money to charities, they also want it private.

[LWolf]

56. Really.

I do know one potential Obama supporter, who has since left him behind in disappointment. I do know a few Edwards supporters, those hoping that his drift to the left is sincere. I have run into a few Biden supporters, as well.

There are no Clinton supporters in the area that I live in willing to come out of the closet, if they are there at all.

[CorpGovActivist]

68. "Clinton supporters ... willing to come out of the closet"

I was one; I recovered.

BTW, snipes do exist; they're just very skittish and neurotic.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

66. "when they give money to charities, they also want it private"

That's why they should always consult a tax advisor, to ensure that the organization they're giving to is properly classified as the correct 501(c)(3) sub-type.

No doubt, many of the 7-figure and 8-figure donors on the Clinton Foundation list very much wanted their giving to remain permanently private, too.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

44. Without Applying Mark Penn-Style "Analysis"...

... the trend in the poll so far is interesting, and suggests this could be a significant "peel away" issue for the Clinton campaign, should such a course of action be pursued.

Too bad the polls here don't allow for staged polling:

1. Identify your candidate of choice on first stage/page; and then

2. Vote on the question.

It would be more telling to see how self-identified Clinton supporters (as pegged by question 1) were answering the core question. As it stands, the poll itself may only show the split of those on here who already don't intend to vote for Clinton anyway.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

55. "Too bad" you won't backup innuendo with actual useful information.

If it were provided, I'd surely use it to try to sway potential Clinton voters (though I also have never met one in person), but it couldn't sway my vote, as I do not support her anyway.

"Too bad" the poll is a pointless hypothetical.

"Too bad" you don't provide any useful material.

[CorpGovActivist]

60. ... and Yet, Here You Are ...

... "participating" in a pointless hypothetical.

Are the filings themselves "useful" material? I hadn't seen those anywhere on DU until I dug them up and posted links.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

70. The links are to publicly posted 990 filings of the William J. Clinton Foundation.

I asked if you had any concern about there being anything amiss with the content of the filings or with the mission or purpose of the foundation. You haven't pointed out any issues you have with these documents you linked.

You have hurled about the words "Quid Pro Quo" and "Bribery", but these accusations remain vague hypotheticals unless you clarify and subtantiate them.

Shit or get off the pot, put up or shut up.

[CorpGovActivist]

73. How Can You "Follow the Money" without Knowing the Source?

How can you make an informed decision - boxed in and bounded by your personal value system and willingness to take into account new data - about whether or not an appearance of a conflict is merely that, or rises to something more?

With that critical question - "who gave the money?" - unanswered, it is impossible. So why hammer at and yammer at those who seek the answer?

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

82. You don't "seek an answer", you have made an accusation of "bribery".

Accusations of "quid pro quo", without any substantiation whatever.

"appearance of conflict"... you haven't shown any such thing. It appears to be a product of your imagination.

Your crap is ugly, low and does not belong here. We have enough rightwingers to promote such made-up gossip trash.

Ya got somethin', post it. Or go away.

[CorpGovActivist]

84. Assume for a Moment That Biden and His Campaign Manager Have Copies of the Lists...

... right now, to help them prepare their public reaction when they come out.

Do you think that Senator Biden and his campaign manager are counseling that the data be published in a precipitous or hasty fashion, or do you think that they are appreciative of the "under embargo" timeframe within which to:

1. Vet the data themselves;

2. Suggest media outlets that will treat it accurately; and

3. Prepare their own public response?

- Dave

[creeksneakers2]

146. How do we know you aren't Marilyn Quayle? n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

147. By the Manner in Which You Selectively Use Your Skepticism...

... you reveal yourself.

- Dave

[paulk]

52. who are you working for?

Seriously.

You keep bringing this up, you've gotten threads locked and completely disappeared because of it -

I seriously have to wonder what your motives are in this matter.

[CorpGovActivist]

54. I Support Informed Voter Choice...

... the exercise of the franchise is too dear to make uninformed choices.

I delved into the issue to inform myself. What I discovered wasn't pretty.

- Dave

[paulk]

64. I don't believe you.

You are insinuationg some very serious things here, with absolutely no proof.

your motives are very, very questionable, IMO, and I would hope others on this board feel the same way.

[CorpGovActivist]

67. Well, That Play Is Just Plain Threadbare...

... do you really think the reporting will focus on the motives of the person bringing to light the names and potential quid pro quos embodied on the donor lists, or the names, matched to the amounts, cross-referenced to the policies that were pending before the Clintons at the time of the donation?

If that's the best Mark Penn has up his sleeve, then they're more tone deaf than I am willing to believe.

- Dave

[ProfessorGAC]

72. Well, I've Got Your Back Paul

I share your suspicions.
The Professor

[CorpGovActivist]

74. Healthy Skepticism Welcomed; Blind Scorn Need Not Apply...

... and by the speed (or lack thereof) with which they rush past the donors' names and related pending policies at the time of giving, the two camps shall be known.

- Dave

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Stealth Anti-Clintonism Need Not Apply Either

Conjecture is not proof. You are doing no more than guessing, and you know it, Dave.

And, lest we not be confused. I am not supporting Hillary in the primaries. But, like Paul, i do not believe you are not politically motivated in this crusade.
The Professor

[CorpGovActivist]

79. I Am Unabashedly against Her Candidacy Now, To My Own Suprise

I thought I'd made that clear. Indeed, the evolution of my posts shows that pretty clearly (I tussled with a prominent Edwards supporter in defense of Senator Clinton before new facts helped change my mind). There's nothing stealthy about my decision (which came as a surprise to me) to actively oppose her candidacy.

"Conjecture is not proof."

No, but the names on the donor lists are what they are, and the policies pending at the time of their giving have been what they have been.

Martin Luther and I are on the same page about indulgences, be they temporal, spiritual, or secular.

"You are doing no more than guessing, and you know it, Dave."

That should tell you something. I'm a true INTJ. When I know that I know that I know something, I know it. That declaration of definitiveness is not made until it's a lock.

"I am not supporting Hillary in the primaries."

Are you actively opposing her? Some choose to only support the candidate of choice, and refrain - for a variety of reasons - from actively opposing other candidates. Depending on the race, I've taken that approach myself before, and no doubt will again. This is not one of those times.

"But, like Paul, i do not believe you are not politically motivated in this crusade."

The only benefit I stand to derive is the satisfaction of sharing knowledge, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, we may need to explore what you mean by "politically motivated"...

- Dave

[ProfessorGAC]

138. Sorry. I Don't Trust You

You keep saying you've got the goods. But, then you don't share it.

This seems like a backdoor way of supporting candidate "A" by denigrating cadidate "B". But, it's all innuendo and conjecture, unless you share the knolwedge.

Remember, you claimed that was your motivation. Yet, you steel it away as privileged information that only you know.

You say they're not transparent, but you know the donor list. How convenient. Either they are letting folks know who's on the donor list or not. If you know, and you think transparency is that important, publish it!

I have yet to see any real merit to your posts. It seems like one long, semi-continuous ego stroke. "I'm so clever and important and knowledgeable that all you plebes should just do what i say."

Sorry. No. I don't trust you.
The Professor

[CorpGovActivist]

139. Do You Trust the Clintons?

Apply that diatribe to their treatment of the donor list.

If my actions lead to its wide dissemination, will you change your tune, or find a way to criticize me for bringing the data to light? Just so we all know what to expect.

On Edit: BTW, have you bothered to look at the redacted versions of the donor lists, the ones I provided links to? Had you seen those anywhere else before?

- Dave

[Yael]

75. Strangely worded. Nothing can affect my primary vote.

I am guessing this is only relevant to Clinton supporters?

[CorpGovActivist]

77. I Think I've Landed on My Primary Choice, Too...

... though I remain amenable to new facts all the way up until pushing the "Cast Ballot" button.

"I am guessing this is only relevant to Clinton supporters?"

Not necessarily; if you have Clinton supporters in your circle of friends and family, you might find the data useful for rational, fact-based voters who are amenable to new data.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

86. What "data"? What "new data"? What "new facts"? There are NONE presented.

[CorpGovActivist]

87. Are You Familiar with Thomas the Apostle?

Will online copies of the lists suffice, or will you need to see and lay hands on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle#The_Ancient_Debate_over_Doubting_Thomas">original ink, too?

Let us all know where your personal goal posts are, and make sure they're immovable once staked.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

89. Why SURE! Post online copies of "the lists"! It's what we've been waiting for you to produce, eh?

You have been intimating that there is something to see there, so we will be interested to view "the lists", so we can view them and see if there are concerns.

Thanks, I'm pleased that you are finally ready to back it up and show what you have been posting about for days without these documents being presented.

[CorpGovActivist]

91. Hasty or Precipitous Publication ...

... of such data, without taking proper precautions to ensure that the data has been vetted, would be imprudent.

The data exists. Surely even someone who is being willfully obtuse will concede that the existence of the redacted versions gives rise to the reasonable inference that the unredacted copies exist?

Assuming "yes," then the unredacted data itself is the thing. With holiday calendar and the primary schedule being what they are, surely you would concede that fact-checking by third parties unaffiliated with - and indeed, initially skeptical of - the discovere should take place before the genie is let out?

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

95. Hahahahahahaaaa!!!

OK!

Virtually every non-profit charitable organization posts redacted lists, as does IRS, per IRS recommendations, requirements and proceedures.

You indicate here that whatever your unredacted info purports to be, has not been vetted, but you nonetheless make accusations of bribery and quid pro quo.

Yeah, I sure wouldn't want any "info" or "data" to fall into the hands of DU before it's been "vetted" by "media outlets"!

Hahaha!!!!

[CorpGovActivist]

96. Substitute "Authenticated"...

... and add in the element of responsible journalism that requires the reporter to go to the source (in this case, the entity), to verify that the pages are authentic.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

92. Cross-Posted

Hypothetically speaking:

1. If an obscure URL already exists, requiring a user account and password to access currently; and

2. If certain trusted journalists have been given such user accounts and passwords to view the "dangerous data" under embargo, so that they may conduct necessary fact-checking in order to file stories; and

3. At the expiration of the embargo date, the password restrictions will be removed, and the data will be open to public view ...

... does that satisfy your demand that the data be released NOW?

[troubleinwinter]

97. I can't quite see how a HYPOTHETICAL future release after hypothetical vetting of information

related to publicly posted accusations of bribery by a Dem campaign is particularly sastisfying.

At this time, what you have is a SMEAR. Nothing more than a SMEAR. No proof, no documentation, nothing. If this were put out by Rove, people here would be up-in-arms outraged.

Put up or shut up until you have something to show.

Should we be led by the nose by every ugly assertion made on these boards? Yours hasn't even been specific, but vague and dirty. Who knows what the fuck you're talking about.

[CorpGovActivist]

98. *snicker*

Boy, did I have a pithy reply for your inability to get satisfaction, but boy, would it have gotten me in trouble.

- Dave

[paulk]

101. "if this were put out by Rove"....

actually, we have no real way of knowing who this is being put out by....

[CorpGovActivist]

102. Unless the Discoverer...

... has a genuine and abiding interest in historical accuracy, and captured a series of timeline provers along the way to authenticate how the data was obtained, how s/he tried to make the campaign in question aware, and what the outcomes were.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

105. Unless the poster...

never provides such claimed "data", proof of accuracy (proof of any assertions at all), and merely posts accusations and smears.

Buncha hooey.

[CorpGovActivist]

106. Time Will Tell ...

... and to make it interesting, maybe we could wager on whether Biden drops out before or after the data emerges into public view?

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

107. What "data"? When will it "emerge"? Why do you see fit to make unsubstantiated claims?

Biden has squat to do with the conversation. Well, unless maybe you have some more unsubstantiated assertions in your ass pocket you'd like to whip out.

[CorpGovActivist]

108. Willfully Obtuse? Neither Cute Nor Convincing

Enough.

You know what the data is: the names of who gave is the primary, objective data. Cross-referenced information about what those names may have been seeking - and whether or not they were successful in obtaining it from the Clintons - is secondary, subjective data.

Go yip at someone else's heels, or else take an actual bite.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

109. REALLY???!!!!! I have seen no such "data". But someday, maybe, I guess.

"may have been seeking", "whether or not successful".

Umkay.

In the meantime, without providing any such "data" at all, you've used the words "quid pro quo", "bribery", "influence peddling" and "mafia money" in this thread.

[CorpGovActivist]

110. Political Pomeranians

... like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomeranian_%28dog%29">real pomeranians ... amuse for a while, then bore, then grow tiresome, then need to be petted, picked up, and kindly kenneled.

Sometimes, they insist on continuing to yap from their kennel, but it's best to ignore them, and it's certainly inadvisable, in the long-term, to reward their yipping insistence on attention.

When it's feeding time, it's feeding time.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

111. And If One Can't Be the Pomeranian's Master...

... at least one can aspire to be the ringleader flea on the pomeranian's posterior.

- Dave

[paulk]

113. what's your point?

that anyone who challenges your complete lack of substance is a little yapping dog?

If anyone is barking at nothing on this thread it's you.

[CorpGovActivist]

120. Much Like the Currently-Secret Clinton Donor Data...

... I guess my point is open to interpretation.

- Dave

[creeksneakers2]

148. Are you the same guy who said

he was going to infiltrate a Clinton campaign office with hidden cameras and microphones?

[CorpGovActivist]

151. No n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

112. At 40 Votes, 60% Say "Yes" ...

... it would negatively affect their view of Clinton.

- Dave

[porphyrian]

115. Other: I'm in Florida, so my primary vote won't count and I may just stay home. -n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

116. I Wish You the Luxury of a Meaningful Primary Then n/t

[OhioChick]

117. No Effect on My Primary Vote......

Not Voting for HRC, anyway.

[CorpGovActivist]

119. Would You Share the Data with Clinton Supporters You Know and Love? n/t

[OhioChick]

122. Sure.

However, I don't know of any Clinton supporters in my family/circles.

[CorpGovActivist]

124. "I don't know of any Clinton supporters"

Search the nuttier branches of the family tree.

; )

- Dave

[OhioChick]

125. LOL....

That search was already completed....still none! :)

[CorpGovActivist]

126. How Far from the Trunk...

... did you have to travel?

Tell the truth...

:rofl:

- Dave

P.S. The Grinch!

[CorpGovActivist]

127. At 51 Votes, 61%...

... register that this legal maneuver would negatively impact their view of Senator Clinton.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

133. Hahaha! "this legal maneuver". What "legal maneuver"? Is there a "legal maneuver"? Link?

If I make a poll and ask if 'Upon exposure of CorpGovActivist as a GOP operative who posts unsubstantiated smears against a Dem candidate, would you choose to stop recommending his threads?', what do you think the vote percentage would be?

I would have made an unsubstantiated accusation against you. Would you expect people to call me out for such a smear, or would you expect DUers to swallow it just because I say so?

[CorpGovActivist]

136. Yip Yap n/t

[eShirl]

134. is this what they call "push polling?"

[CorpGovActivist]

135. This Is What They Call...

... determining what a peel-away issue might be.

Smart campaigns do this internally, too.

Though the sample isn't large enough, were the ratios to hold up in larger numbers, it appears that this would be an inadvisable course of action for the Clintons to pursue.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

137. At 61 Votes, 61% Register Disfavor...

... for this prospective legal maneuver.

- Dave