Juan Williams: ‘Backdoor’ foreign Clinton Foundation donations ‘rank influence peddling’

The American Mirror ^ | 2/19/15 | Olaf Ekberg

[minnesota_bound]

So they supposedly stopped taking bribes in 2009 as she became secretary of state but was ok with accepting bribes while she was senator....

The news media missed all these bribes huh?
$100 million and counting plus where did all the billions go that was suppose to go the the victims in Haiti?

[C. Edmund Wright]

small minds focus on personality.
Great minds on ideas.
I’m not focused on Juan. He is who he is.
But what he said was 100% right. Sorry that’s above your head.

[Robert DeLong]

small minds focus on personality.
Great minds on ideas.
I’m not focused on Juan. He is who he is.
But what he said was 100% right. Sorry that’s above your head.

I didn't state that he was wrong, I said he was selective on whom to exercise that idea while ignoring the other who did the same thing while he remained silent.

Those that think they have great minds, usually resort to personal attacks, while the perceived small minds merely point to the truth.

[VTenigma]

Blind squirrel much?

[C. Edmund Wright]

But again, you misunderstand. You were right about Juan Williams over all, but it was still whiny and OFF TOPIC for you to focus on what he HAS NOT SAID as a way to dismiss what he actually did say.

Odd that you were so determined to find the cloud instead of the silver lining. Speaks volumes.....and the “remained silent” thesis is just absurd and paranoid. I don’t care what he remained silent on. He didn’t remain silent here.

[Robert DeLong]

But again, you misunderstand. You were right about Juan Williams over all, but it was still whiny and OFF TOPIC for you to focus on what he HAS NOT SAID as a way to dismiss what he actually did say.

Odd that you were so determined to find the cloud instead of the silver lining. Speaks volumes.....and the “remained silent” thesis is just absurd and paranoid. I don’t care what he remained silent on. He didn’t remain silent here.

I misunderstood nothing, nor was I whining, and I certainly was not off topic. As the topic was Juan and what he had to say about foreign contributions. So talking about Juan and the foreign contributions that Obama accepted, with Juan saying nothing about them, is on topic. Albeit a different person, but none the less, the same topic.

Rather than not finding the silver lining and instead the cloud, as you wax so eloquently, I am looking at the history of the man. His history stinks, so I refuse to give him kudos when he gets one thing right. Especially when he is selective with regards to whom receives his condemnation. Now if he starts improving his average of "getting it right", and he applies his condemnation equally to all guilty of said improprieties, I will start giving him kudos. Until then he garners the hypocrite label from me.

That said, I am not stopping you from showering him with kudos, for I respect that your opinion differs from mine. I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong in your opinion, and I am certainly not trying to intimidate you to change your opinion. Apparently though, much like a liberal, you feel that everyone should agree with your opinions or STFU. Is that what you're motive is here?

[Robert DeLong]

Correction: Is that what your motive is here?

[C. Edmund Wright]

First, I don’t read long posts...only skim them. But even in skimming I see you reverted to the liberal trick of creating a straw argument...that I was “showering him with kudos” - when of course I did no such thing and never have. I even wrote a published piece several years ago criticizing Fox News for giving him the raise after NPR fired him - because in the long run, it would be a bad deal.

And I was right of course.

All I said here was lighten up and enjoy a rare moment of lucidity. You are maudlin and totally humorless. Like liberals are.

[Robert DeLong]

LOL, Was I being self pitying or was being I tearfully sentimental? One thing for sure is I wasn't doing it in a drunken state, because I don't drink.

Perhaps not drinking has caused me to be humorless. Of course I must have missed the humor of your posts hidden in plain site in the form of personal attacks of being a whiny, small minded person who misunderstands while straying off topic, and develops thesis's that are absurd and paranoid.

Apparently you need to read posts that are long (though I wasn't aware that 3 small paragraph responses were considered long), or at least comprehend them. I didn't say you showered him with kudos. I said I'm not stopping you from showering him with kudos.

In the future I will try to limit my posts to you in zero words.

[C. Edmund Wright]

your inability to have any sense of humor or perspective is that you thought the issue is about Juan Williams, the person, this history - but it was not - it was about a single statement he made that was correct.

And besides, the other stuff is not pertinent to the coming 2016 presidential race.

[Robert DeLong]

Okay, I lied. I am going to respond.

And besides, the other stuff is not pertinent to the coming 2016 presidential race.

How does Juan's statement have any bearing on the 2016 Presidential election? Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. Not enough supporters to ever make it. We already saw her popularity among democrats in 2008. If anything her stock has gone down even further since then.

your inability to have any sense of humor or perspective is that you thought the issue is about Juan Williams, the person, this history - but it was not - it was about a single statement he made that was correct.

No, you are trying to make the issue as Juan Williams had a rare occurrence of being correct. The issue in my opinion is Juan selectively choses to admonish one person while totally ignoring the same issue, accepting foreign contributions, when it pertains to another. As for my ability to have any sense of humor I guess I have seen nothing that humorous. Just selective hypocrisy. I do find you humorous though, in your lame attempts to convert me to see the issue as you want it framed. Not to mention your feeble attempts to belittle me some sort of drool, small minded, whiny person who misunderstands what the issue is. As you want to frame it that is. Which then makes me guilty of veering off topic, again because you are deciding what the issue is. To top it off apparently my thinking process is absurd and paranoid to an intellect such as yourself. Honestly though I am not paranoid that Juan may be correct again in the future, nor am I concerned if he gets another one right. I'm sorry that I see a topic pertaining to the issue raised by Juan, foreign contributions, beyond what you & Juan see, as does Edgar3 who first raised the "off topic" statement to begin with. I merely responded to your utterance to him: 'the dude finally says something insightful, courageous and UNDER REPORTEd - and you gotta find something to bitch about?', with: 'To be courageous with one person while turning a blind-eye from another doing the exact same thing is neither insightful nor courageous. Juan is a hypocrite. His (Edgar3) question was 100% legit'.

You're wasting your talents if you aren't engaging employment as a standup comedian fashioned after Don Rickles.

Oh BTW, let me apologize in advance for creating such a looooooooong response for you to read. I'm just not smart or humorous enough to state it in a clever little sound bite.

[C. Edmund Wright]

yep, too long to read, but you STEPPED into it in the first or second sentence - so I don’t have to.

Actually, you and I agree that Hillary may well not be the nominee - BUT BUT - and this is important because you really struggle with context - Juan is assuming she WILL be - and she almost certainly will run - thus at this point, any discussion of Clinton IS RELATED TO 2016. Will it be relevant in say, August of 2016? Maybe, maybe not. But it is now.

Google context, proportionality, and study on those concepts.

[Robert DeLong]

You remind me of someone, now who is it?

Oh yeah, Obama. He skims through things as well. He rightly calls ISIS a.k.a. ISIL a.k.a. Islamic State, terrorists while flatly denying that they are Islamic. Even though they are following the Koran precisely as written. I guess Obama deserves at least a half a kudo since he was half right.

We don't agree. I stated flat out that she will not be the democratic nominee, while you are sitting on the fence with may or may not be. It's easy to be right when one picks both sides of the coin, just as it's easier to have loose convictions.

To appease you I will google those words:

context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Yep just as I thought. Edgar3 added an additional statement so that it could be fully understood and assessed, and I agreed with him.

proportionality
1. Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.
2. Properly related in size, degree, or other measurable characteristics; corresponding:
3. Mathematics Having the same or a constant ratio.

Again Edgar3's statement meets the requirements of proportionality (a relationship with other parts. Properly related by other measurable characteristics, Having the same ratio). So I still support Edgar3's statement.

Not sure what point you had hoped to prove by that exercise, but I played along.

About the only thing I can agree with you on is the fact that Hillary will indeed run. She hungers for power, but that is so obvious.

Let's assume Juan's epiphany vis-à-vis Clinton is related to 2016, is he really such an influential person that it will sway multitudes of voters? Or will it have little-to-no affect? My guess is the latter.

There I go again, writing a mini novel for you to not read fully.

P.S. Love your caps on for dramatic effect.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I’m a speech writer, political ad copy writer, among other talents - and the use of caps is for emphasis in the spoken word form. Sorry that escapes you.

But I’m more distressed that logic escapes you. All your cut and paste below, which I skimmed, doesn’t change one UNDENIABLE (oh, sorry for the caps) TRUTH.

Juan was making these comments in context of Hillary being the nominee, or at least a candidate. These are his comments, so we must use his context to understand them, let alone analyze them. Juan is part of a political talking head class, and in context, they all agree Hillary is serious 2016 contender. So not only Juan’s context, but the context of his entire industry.

And in the context that Hillary will run and be a major force at minimum, Juan’s comments were appropriate - and thus it is not relevant to bring up what he has or has not said in the past about other politicians. That is OUT of context.

In fact, you don’t know for damned sure he has “remained silent” on those other issues - you just can’t remember anything he said about them. How can you assume, let alone prove a negative like that?

It takes a certain foolish and infantile arrogance to think that reading one article or seeing one interview means you know a person’s full body of thought and work on the topic. You have that foolish infantile arrogance, else you wouldn’t make the comments you did.

All of which is academic, because you don’t know for a fact that Hillary won’t be the nominee, and you certainly can’t guarantee she won’t even run, therefore a Clinton comment vis a vis 2016 is fully proper and stands alone as valid.

[Robert DeLong]

LOL, am I bantering with Karl Rove?

I cut and pasted the words, and their meanings, that you wanted me to peruse on the internet to provide context as to how those words lend credence to my argument, that the topic is not as narrow as your tunnel vision only allows for. I can do a lot more than cut & paste BTW.

Let me allay your distress concerning my abilities to think logically. I do just fine on my own, and I don't need a talking head to form logical conclusions. I also write coded programs for computers which requires good structured logic if a programmer is any good at his profession.

Apparently sarcasm escapes you with regards to the caps on comment. Oh well. It also is how you yell at someone who gets under your skin causing great agitation. I'm glad that wasn't the reason for the caps, yet I did clearly say affect. Which could be construed as emphasis if one thinks outside the box.

I understood perfectly what Juan was doing, yet I doubt his sentiments carry across the entire industry. But if you want to believe that, that is your right. Again though, I do not give much credence to talking heads as they are merely providing their opinions. Often time I wonder if they are even educated opinions, and not just emotional opinions.

I can state with 99.9% certainty that he said nothing about Clinton accepting foreign contributions when Bill was running for re-election, and the same holds true with Obama accepting foreign contributions in both elections. In the public I should add. Otherwise, I am certain it would have been news for weeks on end with the left chewing him up into little pieces. A google search produces nothing either. Just for your information that is not a negative that is impossible to prove or disprove. One can either offer up evidence that he stated it, or if they can't then it's obvious that it never occurred. We live in the electronic information age where even things we wished we hadn't said linger out there in cyberspace much to our dismay.

Perhaps you need to comprehend what you read, as I clearly stated that Hillary will run. She seeks power. To be the first woman President would be the whipped cream with the cherry on top.

Of course I do not know for certain if Hillary will be the nominee, but I made the statement and am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I am not playing both sides of the coin assuring that I am correct. I am stating that my belief (should I cap that for you to emphasis that?) is she will not be the nominee. I come to that conclusion because she got beat by an unknown when she was very well known. On top of that her husband is somewhat of a beloved hero to the Democrats, at least as far as his success with the economy is concerned. Since that time her stock has plummeted, especially with the hard core left. My guess is the moderate to right leaning left voters are not all that enthusiastic about her either. Lastly I believe the Democratic apparatchik despise her. That's my logical conclusion regarding Hillary and I'm sticking to it.

Who knows, perhaps Juan's motivation is to ensure she doesn't become the party's nominee. Meaning his motivation isn't to call her on foreign donations, but rather cast her in a bad light. I have no problem with that on its face, but I am also not impressed with his comment either.

LOL, as Reagan would say, there you go again. Now I possess a certain foolish and infantile arrogance because I won't submit to what you want to frame as the topic. I can't help it if you cannot see the larger topic, within the smaller topic you chose it to be.

I will say one thing, you do make me laugh. See I am not as humorless as you stated I was.

I'm sure you will speed read this as you have my other posts. Oh well. Much like your thinking that getting a Republican President will cure all ills America is experiencing (which leads me to the opinion of why you are so excited as to what Juan said), it's apparent your refusal to look at bigger pictures, and tuning out anything longer than sound bites, is what shapes your thinking.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Oh well. Much like your thinking that getting a Republican President will cure all ills America is experiencing

Delusional lying little child you are - you can not ever find a single word that I have written here or anyone else that says so - in fact, I've written much to the contrary - so you're either delusional or just a bald face liar. Which is it?

And how you thought that has anything to do with Juan Williams is beyond me.

Since you brought up Rove, who also has nothing to do with the topic at hand, If you apologize, I'll send you autographed copy of my best seller.

If you don't apologize, you'll have to buy your own. And no autograph...:D

[Robert DeLong]

If you want an apology I'll be glad to offer one. I do not seek to insult anyone. So if I insulted you than I am sorry. Not knowing you from Adam, I was fishing trying to determine who you are. BTW, I am not offering this apology because of your generous offer for an autographed book, though I probably would appreciate that. I will leave that up to you as to whether you wish to make good on that offer. Furthermore, since your book trashes Karl Rove I apologize for my joke of asking if you were Karl Rove, as you are obviously not him. LOL

Thant being said, I can still not offer up an attaboy to Juan Williams, no more than I could offer up an attaboy for Obama if by some miracle, or stroke of luck, he got something right.

Perhaps it's my learned distrust of liberals and my getting used to wondering what their hidden agenda is that has caused them to say something I agree with. Perhaps his hidden agenda is to trash Hillary Clinton because he knows that the Clintons hate the Obamas. But since he was silent about Obama receiving foreign contributions, I contend that he is just playing politics. If you can disprove that by finding any reference of him uttering anything even remotely resembling a condemnation to Obama accepting foreign contributions, I will gladly admit my error. Until then, I still believe it is valid to question why Juan has not offered the same admonishment to Obama for his acceptance of foreign contributions.

While the narrow topic of the thread may have been Juan talking about the 2016 Presidential race, I see nothing wrong with expanding the topic to be foreign contributions to candidates and public officials. While it may not be on topic, if the topic is so very narrowly defined as to limit it to foreign contributions vis-a-vis the 2016 Presidential race. However, I still live in America, at least in name only, I will exercise my Constitutional right to free speech. So, while most American freedoms have been trashed I contend I should be able to expand the topic beyond just Juan's utterance regarding Clinton and the 2016 Presidential race, to the larger topic of foreign contributions accepted by existing public officials and candidates running for public office. Especially on a site I have come to believe honors our Constitution. Thus, I do not feel that it is off topic at all, but rather an expansion on the larger topic of foreign contributions to American politicos past, present, and future. A topic that Juan started even if he himself had limited it to only the 2016 Presidential race. Unfortunately not one of the talking heads present had the courage to ask Juan, for I would have loved to see his response.

Let me finish by responding to your question:
Delusional lying little child you are - you can not ever find a single word that I have written here or anyone else that says so - in fact, I've written much to the contrary - so you're either delusional or just a bald face liar. Which is it?

The short answer is neither. The long answer is I am just an American (unhyphenated and unqualified) who sees what is happening to this once great country, and is extremely concerned about its disintegration into a Third World hellhole.

I'm sure we agree on many things and share a lot of the same beliefs and convictions. This just wasn't one of them. LOL

P.S. I admire your gift to write book(s) that people actually want to read, and wish you continued success. I wish I had that ability, but alas have found that not to be something the good Lord chose to endow me with - as evidenced by my back & forth bantering with you. But I try my best, LOL.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Of course it was sincere offer. I am surprised, and humbled - and pleased - you are open to it. I apologize for my anger - I don’t take very well to being compared to Rove or any GOP estab figure - given the fact it’s the furthest thing from the truth.

ALSO: See FR Mail.

And yes, you and I agree on almost everything important - and our concern and fear for this country is exactly the same. The only tension is how to process a short moment of lucidity from a liberal with respects to saving this Republic.

You say disregard it because Juan is not one of the good guys - and he’s certainly not - but I say that when someone who is predisposed to disagree with us makes a good point, it actually has more power than when one of us say the same thing. That is it. Kind of like when a black conservative defends other conservatives against racism...Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Allen West - it simply carries more weight because of their skin color. It just does. Sad, but it does.

So when a Bill Clinton supporting liberal calls out the Clinton Foundation for being an illegal election slush fund - which it certainly is - that carries more weight than when I do (and I have for years). It just does. That’s the only disagreement between you and I. You clearly love the country and are in the fight to save it on the side of the white hats....as am I.

I guess I will give Juan this tiny kudo - because the Clinton Foundation has been a topic of interest and concern to me for a long time. For reference, look at this article I wrote about Fox News and Juan Williams five years ago:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/10/foxs_rash_juan_williams_overre.html

BTW, I took heat for that on this site....because i was being too mean to Juan. Ironic ain’t it?

[Robert DeLong]

You say disregard it because Juan is not one of the good guys - and he’s certainly not -

If that is what you thought I was communicating then I blame myself for being an ineffectual communicator. What I was trying to communicate was remain silent when Juan happens to get something right. Instead, let Juan feel the full wrath of his liberal brethren, because there is no doubt they will unleash it. I can acknowledge privately that he got something right. My public acknowledgment only gives other liberals ammunition to accuse him of pandering to conservatives. If conservatives remain silent, the liberal can only attack him. If nothing else that may start to convert Juan. If it doesn't then nothing has been lost. If it does then we have won, and Juan will think more conservatively.

when someone who is predisposed to disagree with us makes a good point, it actually has more power than when one of us say the same thing.

When it comes to liberals, they will merely label him a traitor. Liberals may think, but only in the direction they have been taught to think. If a fellow liberal breaks away from the group think, he is trashed by all other liberals. It may have an affect on a small minority of the liberals, those who haven't been totally immersed for long periods in the liberal group think ideology. However, the vast majority will reject it, and angrily I might add. Much the same holds true for blacks, how many times have you heard a conservative black referred to as an Uncle Tom? That being said, there is a dynamic at play within the black community that is slightly different than the liberal community at large. They have still not seen any difference in their standard of living If anything they are realizing that it is actually getting worse. Black conservative may actually be able to reach larger numbers, by stating that is isn't the Republican Party's fault, since Democrats held the Senate, White House, and even the House Of Representatives for the majority of the Obama Presidency.

I guess I will give Juan this tiny kudo - because the Clinton Foundation has been a topic of interest and concern to me for a long time.

I guess my suggestion would be, to make that issue the topic instead of Juan. Referencing Juan as a nothing more than a footnote that, amazingly, even he understands the issue.

I read you article in American Thinker and for the life on me cannot see where you were too harsh on Juan. However, even acknowledging Juan is a waste of time, in my opinion. I stopped watching Fox when they starting giving the left more and more airtime to espouse liberal nonsense. But they still deliver the best, most honest news available to the American public on TV.