Well, obviously Crooked Hillary has been hard at work. How corrupt are these Dems?
Is this legal? Sure sounds illegal...

Quote:Democratic National Committee documents recently released by WikiLeaks include spreadsheets and emails that appear to show party officials planning which donors and prominent fundraisers to provide with appointments to federal boards and commissions.

The documents, which were circulated among top DNC officials in April, could raise legal questions for the party, says Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.

“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fund raising operations of the Democratic Party,” Boehm told The Daily Caller.

“That is unethical, if not illegal.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked...ointments/

It's comforting to know you can "buy" an appointment to a federal board or commission. No wonder lobbyists want Hilldawg so badly.

Isnt this how its always been?

We need a bunch of Tom's water trucks converting into paddy wagons and then arrest all of them.

(07-25-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isnt this how its always been?

You tell me, and prove it.

(07-25-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isnt this how its always been?

With the Dems...probably.

Hillary never claimed transparency.

(07-25-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isnt this how its always been?

you are not allowed to buy a federal appointment. if that can be proven, yikes

(07-25-2016 11:27 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's comforting to know you can "buy" an appointment to a federal board or commission. No wonder lobbyists want Hilldawg so badly.

You can buy an appointment apparently despite it being a federal offense for all involved.

You can also buy continuing in your present position by ignoring the law and not recommending indictment.

This is outrageous. This governmental system is completely ****ed up beyond salvage.

Tell that to the Koche brother or George Soros

(07-25-2016 11:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  We need a bunch of Tom's water trucks converting into paddy wagons and then arrest all of them.

eh, their water trucks are out of commission at the moment. Something about the ratio of water to water trucks.

(07-25-2016 11:38 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 11:27 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's comforting to know you can "buy" an appointment to a federal board or commission. No wonder lobbyists want Hilldawg so badly.

You can buy an appointment apparently despite it being a federal offense for all involved.

You can also buy continuing in your present position by ignoring the law and not recommending indictment.

This is outrageous. This governmental system is completely ****ed up beyond salvage.

Is this what Rod Blagojevich went to jail for?

(07-25-2016 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 11:38 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 11:27 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's comforting to know you can "buy" an appointment to a federal board or commission. No wonder lobbyists want Hilldawg so badly.

You can buy an appointment apparently despite it being a federal offense for all involved.

You can also buy continuing in your present position by ignoring the law and not recommending indictment.

This is outrageous. This governmental system is completely ****ed up beyond salvage.

Is this what Rod Blagojevich went to jail for?

Yes. The Democrats aren't even feigning the illusion of it being "understood."

Both parties do it, and have done it for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Poli...thing-new.


On average, these numbers show that presidential ambassadorial appointments have come from the career foreign service roughly 67.54 percent of the time and from “political” appointments roughly 32.54 percent of the time. Among presidents who have served a full eight years in office, the average has been 68.05 percent career appointees and 31.95 percent “political” appointees. Not all of these political appointees have been donors or buddies of the president, of course, but many of them have.

The US ambassador to Mexico during much of the Reagan administration, for example, was John Gavin, a former Hollywood actor who was close to Reagan personally. The US ambassador to the Bahamas during a good portion of the Clinton Administration was Sidney Williams, a former professional football player who also happens to be the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters. The ambassador to Belize during George W. Bush’s second term was Robert Dieter, the president’s former roommate at Yale. So, yes, Bell’s appointment to the ambassadorship in Hungary is political, but that’s not unusual given recent history and Obama’s “political” vs. career appointment ratio isn’t all that different from the recent historical norm.

(07-25-2016 12:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Both parties do it, and have done it for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Poli...thing-new.


On average, these numbers show that presidential ambassadorial appointments have come from the career foreign service roughly 67.54 percent of the time and from “political” appointments roughly 32.54 percent of the time. Among presidents who have served a full eight years in office, the average has been 68.05 percent career appointees and 31.95 percent “political” appointees. Not all of these political appointees have been donors or buddies of the president, of course, but many of them have.

The US ambassador to Mexico during much of the Reagan administration, for example, was John Gavin, a former Hollywood actor who was close to Reagan personally. The US ambassador to the Bahamas during a good portion of the Clinton Administration was Sidney Williams, a former professional football player who also happens to be the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters. The ambassador to Belize during George W. Bush’s second term was Robert Dieter, the president’s former roommate at Yale. So, yes, Bell’s appointment to the ambassadorship in Hungary is political, but that’s not unusual given recent history and Obama’s “political” vs. career appointment ratio isn’t all that different from the recent historical norm.

Max, serious question....how do you, as a Bernie supporter, feel about the DNC actively working against your candidate of choice?

(07-25-2016 12:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Both parties do it, and have done it for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Poli...thing-new.


On average, these numbers show that presidential ambassadorial appointments have come from the career foreign service roughly 67.54 percent of the time and from “political” appointments roughly 32.54 percent of the time. Among presidents who have served a full eight years in office, the average has been 68.05 percent career appointees and 31.95 percent “political” appointees. Not all of these political appointees have been donors or buddies of the president, of course, but many of them have.

The US ambassador to Mexico during much of the Reagan administration, for example, was John Gavin, a former Hollywood actor who was close to Reagan personally. The US ambassador to the Bahamas during a good portion of the Clinton Administration was Sidney Williams, a former professional football player who also happens to be the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters. The ambassador to Belize during George W. Bush’s second term was Robert Dieter, the president’s former roommate at Yale. So, yes, Bell’s appointment to the ambassadorship in Hungary is political, but that’s not unusual given recent history and Obama’s “political” vs. career appointment ratio isn’t all that different from the recent historical norm.

Ya heard it here folks, "both parties do it, so it's ok".

Not happy about it but not surprised. I've long been opposed to DWS and she's damaged the party. Obama was going to remove her in 2012 but she threatened to allege misogyny and anti Semitism so he thought it just wasn't worth the fight. Thank God she's out.

It's wrong and distasteful, but Fo Shizzle seemed to suggest it just went on with Dems so I corrected the record.

(07-25-2016 12:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Both parties do it, and have done it for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Poli...thing-new.


On average, these numbers show that presidential ambassadorial appointments have come from the career foreign service roughly 67.54 percent of the time and from “political” appointments roughly 32.54 percent of the time. Among presidents who have served a full eight years in office, the average has been 68.05 percent career appointees and 31.95 percent “political” appointees. Not all of these political appointees have been donors or buddies of the president, of course, but many of them have.

The US ambassador to Mexico during much of the Reagan administration, for example, was John Gavin, a former Hollywood actor who was close to Reagan personally. The US ambassador to the Bahamas during a good portion of the Clinton Administration was Sidney Williams, a former professional football player who also happens to be the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters. The ambassador to Belize during George W. Bush’s second term was Robert Dieter, the president’s former roommate at Yale. So, yes, Bell’s appointment to the ambassadorship in Hungary is political, but that’s not unusual given recent history and Obama’s “political” vs. career appointment ratio isn’t all that different from the recent historical norm.

That is your take on this? Really?

(07-25-2016 12:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Not happy about it but not surprised. I've long been opposed to DWS and she's damaged the party. Obama was going to remove her in 2012 but she threatened to allege misogyny and anti Semitism so he thought it just wasn't worth the fight. Thank God she's out.

But didn't Obama stand up and say something about wanting to have her in his foxhole?

I take it that you put no blame of this on Hillary, just DWS.