EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN HAWKS

[c_hawkbob]

That article basically asserts that the sequence of events laid out in the police report are accurate according to witnesses. I've already stipulated that I believe those to be the actual events and that I never did buy the teams insistence that "he never hit her". So while the fact that the team never interviewed the eye witnesses and instead satisfied themselves with reported interviews with counselors on both sides is new information, It doesn't effect what I have said previously WRT the player. I'm still not ready to condemn him as a habitual abuser.

What it does do is lessen my trust in what the FO says. Bo Duke tried to make it sound as though they had looked under every rock to find out everything there was to know about the incident but that seems less like the case now ... Evidently DV is a deal breaker unless the guy is really talented.

[Hawktawk]

I said in another thread that the Offense was just along for the ride. I'm sticking to that.
We have a Defensive HC, so it's natural. In Holmy's era, the Defense was secondary and basically along for the ride.
Whatever side is carrying the team, the other is riding, but the goal should be more balance and with both sides it all starts with the Line of Scrimmage and who controls it.[/quote]

This is so true of the FOs philosophy and the lack of balance did come back to bite us when Mr defensive HC decided to get cute on the 1 yard line with a very mediocre receiving corps and cost us a Superbowl win. Maybe thats why Dangeruss is hedging his bets on signing up for another 8 year track meet running for his life and pulling rabbits out of his arse to make up for the deficiencies on the offensive line.

[NorthHawk]

I said in another thread that the Offense was just along for the ride. I'm sticking to that.
We have a Defensive HC, so it's natural. In Holmy's era, the Defense was secondary and basically along for the ride.
Whatever side is carrying the team, the other is riding, but the goal should be more balance and with both sides it all starts with the Line of Scrimmage and who controls it.

This is so true of the FOs philosophy and the lack of balance did come back to bite us when Mr defensive HC decided to get cute on the 1 yard line with a very mediocre receiving corps and cost us a Superbowl win. Maybe thats why Dangeruss is hedging his bets on signing up for another 8 year track meet running for his life and pulling rabbits out of his arse to make up for the deficiencies on the offensive line.[/quote]

I'm not one of those who thinks that Wilson is wanting to leave the Seahawks, but it wouldn't surprise me if his agent was using the potential of a shorter career as a lever and wanting more guaranteed money. That's all part of the negotiating game.

[Hawk Sista]

Exactly, Bob. Schneider made it sound like they spent tons of hours and lots or resources to uncover the truth. Did they? Or did the spend those resources with their psych folks trying to determine if Frank is a habitual abuser and/or likely to do this kind of thing again? And with spin doctors who coached Frank what to say? I don't know what to believe....JS stood by his guns in an on-air interview yesterday and said that the team would not have drafted someone who ever struck a woman, not now, not ever and they have released people from the team for this in the past. I know enough to really question the validity of this claim.

I doubt that the public would be able to tolerate the real truth, even if in reality it made good and ethical sense for the team to take this gamble on Mr. Clark after their research. If the stance were that he was a young kid who grew up homeless and abused, that he got drunk (like college kids get), that the fight was instigated by the female who was more violent than Frank himself and that Frank was too aggressive with her, causing injuries to her but not actually hitting her.....and further that Frank has taken FULL accountability and put himself in programs to help him learn how to navigate through conflict and that they believe that a similar situation is not likely to re-occur, but he is on a thin line and he knows it.....then maybe I'd buy it.

This horse crap about his biggest mistake was that putting himself in a bad situation just does not hold water. That was the only accountability Frank took. He said I didn't do anything wrong but put myself in a bad situation. (I did appreciate him publicly recognizing the hurt, time and resources that he has put on the many people involved, including teams interested in him.

BUT.........The older brother is 15 years old. FIFTEEN, not a scared 4 year old, he is 15 and stated that he witnessed Frank's hands on his sister - the direct result of which were injuries to her. The younger brother stated that he witnessed Frank striking his sister. Are we all supposed to feel better that he only choked her and shook her and slammed her to the ground vs. punching her in the face (IF, that is indeed what happened)??

Again, I am far from perfect - have made plenty of mistakes & I have had the good fortune of being raised in an actual house with loving parents who provided for me. I believe it is possible that Frank is a person of character and can grow himself out of having been homeless in the LA jungle, but please (PLEASE) spare me the BS that the only thing he did wrong was put himself in a bad position. Bo Duke's "we would never, ever, ever put someone on our team who put their hands on a woman, I have the look my 4 sisters in the eye" routine is inauthentic to me.

It is what it is now; my hope is that Frank Clark can become a productive and decent member of society and that he doesn't hurt anyone else, whether she strikes first or not. He is a 270 pound ball of muscle and he could kill someone. It is not just the Hawks reputation I am worried about here. Hoping hard he gets the support he needs.

[NorthHawk]

He has had some counseling and I hope it continues, but JS and PC also said he's on a short leash.
The NFL takes a dim view of this activity these days, so if there are any problems, I suspect we will all know fairly quickly.

[RiverDog]

The marks on her face could have come from a number of things.
She was biting his nose severely enough to draw blood, so a number of things could have happened.
Yes, one of them is hitting her (and it seems the likeliest of answers), but if he pushed her off of him or away from him violently, she might have struck the bedside table with her head.
It's not like there is a lot of room in motels and you can easily fall awkwardly.

I don't know about you, but I've had occasions where I've come by bruises and scrapes from weird series of events, but it looked like I might have been in a scuffle.
It happened to me the other week when I was cutting the lawn and I thought I was past the branch of the Apple tree (but wasn't). The scrape looked like I was in a fight or got road rash from falling from a bike. If the scrape was 1.5 inches higher, it would look much more like what actually happened.

I'm not here to defend him, but I do want to point out things aren't always what they seem at first look and it's dangerous to make assumptions.

If it were just cuts and bruises, that's one thing. But you're forgetting that there was other evidence besides the injuries. There was eyewitness testimony, including not just young kids but the victim's initial report to the police, and the condition of the room when police arrived. It's pretty hard to damage both a wall lamp and a table lamp by one fall off a bed. It's pretty apparent that there was a pretty bad scuffle in that room. There were ear witnesses in other rooms that heard yelling and screaming, which is how the cops got called. When asked by the police at the scene, Clark refused to explain any of the evidence. Put all that together and a picture begins to take shape that can only be explained in a very limited number of ways.

The police felt strongly enough about the evidence to charge Clark with felony DV (later plea bargained down) and the University of Michigan felt strongly enough about the evidence to kick Clark off the team, but now John Schneider comes along, doesn't even speak with the victim, and declares that Clark never touched her? Schneider has some explaining to do.

[NorthHawk]

After reading the report from the Seattle Times, it seems they didn't look very hard.

From above:

NorthHawk wrote:
It seems the Seahawks didn't do as good an investigation as we had hoped.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... raft-pick/

[savvyman]

Evidently DV is a deal breaker unless the guy is really talented.

Yep.

Did I mention already that as soon as Clark makes his first Sack wearing a Seahawk uniform, the 12th man will universally accept him and all will be forgiven and forgotten?

[savvyman]

He has had some counseling and I hope it continues,

You know I am getting tired of society letting every asshole off the hook for doing or saying despicable things as long as "They Apologize" and/or say they are in counseling or something like that.

[NorthHawk]

Yah, but it's reality these days, isn't it?

[savvyman]

Yah, but it's reality these days, isn't it?

Yep - Say NorthHawk - FYI my comment was not directed at you or your thoughts - just to be clear.

[NorthHawk]

I took it as a general comment, savvyman. Not directed at anyone in particular.

[RiverDog]

You know I am getting tired of society letting every asshole off the hook for doing or saying despicable things as long as "They Apologize" and/or say they are in counseling or something like that.

I hear ya. Gotta keep those head shrinkers in business.

Earlier I said that I wasn't going to go so far as to call John Schneider a liar, but I'm running out of excuses not to do so. This is going way beyond the drafting of a guy with character issues. It's creating character issues for Schneider and Carroll.

[Hawk Sista]

The more a consider this, the more it bothers me on multiple fronts. I'm a little worried that Pete and John may have bungled this one. Maybe for the right reasons?? I dunno. The more I read and hear, the less confident I am that Frank was a good guy in the wrong room.

I hope it's not their undoing.

[jshawaii22]

You know I am getting tired of society letting every asshole off the hook for doing or saying despicable things as long as "They Apologize" and/or say they are in counseling or something like that.

It really negatively exploded today. I think the national media is 95% against the Hawks pick right now. I'm sure Barrack will weigh in soon, but amazing how few are against Winston the Rapist. Go figure! All his victim did is have her story told in a movie about how rape is blown off at college campuses.

Savvyman, I understand your position, but know that nationally, 90% of first time offenders do not go to jail, other then the night they were arrested. On top of that, most go to a 'diversion program' that not only avoids jail time, but usually after 3-5 years can wipe off the crime completely. This is an unfair but true standard of law. One of the biggest issues of prosecution is that the 'victim' won't testify or if she does In a court, he said - she said is a win for the defense.

It's not just football players. That's what you all need to get over. These crimes are rarely punished. Not that they shouldn't be. They just aren't.

[obiken]

NorthHawk, great point as for as the defense rules and the Offense drools!
As far as Clark, the fault dear Brutus lies not in PC, but in us. We fans don't care as long as we win. We are the hypocrites. IF Peterson comes back and rushes for 2000 yards Viking fans will love him, period.

[RiverDog]

It really negatively exploded today. I think the national media is 95% against the Hawks pick right now. I'm sure Barrack will weigh in soon, but amazing how few are against Winston the Rapist. Go figure! All his victim did is have her story told in a movie about how rape is blown off at college campuses.

Savvyman, I understand your position, but know that nationally, 90% of first time offenders do not go to jail, other then the night they were arrested. On top of that, most go to a 'diversion program' that not only avoids jail time, but usually after 3-5 years can wipe off the crime completely. This is an unfair but true standard of law. One of the biggest issues of prosecution is that the 'victim' won't testify or if she does In a court, he said - she said is a win for the defense.

It's not just football players. That's what you all need to get over. These crimes are rarely punished. Not that they shouldn't be. They just aren't.

Great point about Clark being a first time offender, at least as far as being arrested for a violent crime. It could help explain the plea bargain.

The reason the Hawks are receiving more flak for drafting Clark than the Bucs are for drafting Winston is that the Hawks have come up with some really horrible public statements, first agreeing that anyone striking a woman was a "deal breaker", then claim the statement was still true and that they believed Clark when he said he didn't hit her, and now by admitting that their "extensive research" did not include talking to any of the witnesses other than Clark.

[jshawaii22]

Tampa didn't talk to the accuser or the second accuser of Winston's either. Evidently, It's against NFL policy to try to find the truth.

RD, that wasn't a violent crime in any way, shape or form as far as the law and courts look at it. Lets be realistic. She wasn't shot, stabbed, had bones broken. Again, not saying it didn't happen... but, it wasn't a "violent" crime.

[Seahawks4Ever]

I WILL go so far as to call Schneider a liar in the Franklin Clark saga and I have already. This and other questionable player moves have really shaken my faith in both Pete Carroll and John Schneider.

[c_hawkbob]

Tampa didn't talk to the accuser or the second accuser of Winston's either. Evidently, It's against NFL policy to try to find the truth.

RD, that wasn't a violent crime in any way, shape or form as far as the law and courts look at it. Lets be realistic. She wasn't shot, stabbed, had bones broken. Again, not saying it didn't happen... but, it wasn't a "violent" crime.

BS, rape is absolutely, by definition, a violent crime (with the exception of statutory rape wherein the sex was consensual).

[RiverDog]

Tampa didn't talk to the accuser or the second accuser of Winston's either. Evidently, It's against NFL policy to try to find the truth.

RD, that wasn't a violent crime in any way, shape or form as far as the law and courts look at it. Lets be realistic. She wasn't shot, stabbed, had bones broken. Again, not saying it didn't happen... but, it wasn't a "violent" crime.

Assault is not a violent crime? He wasn't charged with felony assault or assault with a deadly weapon, if that's what you mean. I don't know if violent crime is an official category of crimes of which misdemeanor assault is not included, but the point is that this was the first time Clark was charged with a crime that had a physically injured victim.

[burrrton]

RD, that wasn't a violent crime in any way, shape or form as far as the law and courts look at it.

Are you being serious here??

[Oly]

RD, that wasn't a violent crime in any way, shape or form as far as the law and courts look at it. Lets be realistic. She wasn't shot, stabbed, had bones broken. Again, not saying it didn't happen... but, it wasn't a "violent" crime.

Just...wow.

"Violent crime includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault." It's the first sentence on the bloody page: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

[Hawk Sista]

NOW that is just weird. I'm not sure if he is talking about crime(s) by Clark or Winston, but they were both violent. Let's put him on the receiving end of either of those crimes; I'd bet my house he'd change his mind in a minute.

[NorthHawk]

Although it wasn't me that made the statement, I don't think I'm wrong in saying in a lot of cases the courts don't (or at least have yet to) treat these occurrences as violent.
Fortunately, things are beginning to change.

[RiverDog]

Although it wasn't me that made the statement, I don't think I'm wrong in saying in a lot of cases the courts don't (or at least have yet to) treat these occurrences as violent.
Fortunately, things are beginning to change.

In my book, any crime committed that includes the application of force directed at a human being is a violent crime. I am quite sure that the courts always have looked upon rape, assault, robbery, homicide, etc. in the same general category of violent crimes.

As far as those crimes that included DV, yes, there was a time when the courts looked at such crimes with a little different eye than other crimes that incorporated the same amount of violence, but my experience is that it's been quite some time since they didn't take them as seriously as they do today.

[NorthHawk]

Do the Courts have the authority to deny a plea bargain?
If so, they are complicit in perpetuating the view that these acts are of lesser violence than a mugging or other violent act by permitting the charges to be downgraded.
If the courts do not have a say, then the DA's are at fault.

The simple act of permitting people to plead guilty to a lesser offense tends to minimize the perception of the severity of the act (beat someone up then plead guilty to Causing a Disturbance, pay a small fine, and no other consequences, and maybe no record).

[c_hawkbob]

Do the Courts have the authority to deny a plea bargain?

Of course they do, a plea bargain is a suggestion to the court (as is a finding by a jury, which are, in rare cases, set aside by the court) ... the final disposition of a case is always up to the judge.

If so, they are complicit in perpetuating the view that these acts are of lesser violence than a mugging or other violent act by permitting the charges to be downgraded.

But the court has at least the advantage of being able to review all the (permissible) pertinent evidence.

If the courts do not have a say, then the DA's are at fault.

The simple act of permitting people to plead guilty to a lesser offense tends to minimize the perception of the severity of the act (beat someone up then plead guilty to Causing a Disturbance, pay a small fine, and no other consequences, and maybe no record).

Why not let the prosecutor in the case tell you why she saw the plea bargain as the correct course of action, it's pretty interesting: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -batterer/

I don't like soft courts any better than anyone, but as usual there are always two sides, and the more information one can garner from each side the better personal evaluation one can make. It's certainly better than picking a side and then looking only at/for the evidence that support that opinion.

[NorthHawk]

From what I see of the Court system, plea bargains are about saving money, and making it easier to get convictions, not extracting justice.
Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[mykc14]

Great read bob, thanks for finding and linking that. It doesn't answer the question everybody wants answered: 'did he actually hit her' but it does paint a pretty clear picture that there was no attempted to give special treatment to a football player in the plea agreement. She also makes it clear Hurt was at least partially at fault in the altercation and eludes to the fact that things in the initial police report might not have been exactly what happened. I also like how she explains, as many of us pointed out, why questioning those other witnesses was pointless. They saw what they saw after the incident but don't have any idea what actually happened in the hotel room during the altercation.

[RiverDog]

Here's the part of the prosecutor's story that caught my eye:

Gast-King (the prosecuting attorney) said the Seahawks never contacted her before they made Clark their second-round pick last week. The team has said it conducted a thorough investigation and is convinced that Clark did not strike Hurt, despite her statement to police that night that he had “punched her in the face.’’

So if the Seahawks didn't talk to the prosecuting attorney, didn't talk to any of the witnesses at the scene, just who in the hell did they talk to in this very extensive investigation of theirs?

[c_hawkbob]

They said counselors of both parties, which I took to mean psychological counselors but some interpreted as legal counselors. I think this story strengthens the psychological counselors notion.

[mykc14]

Here's the part of the prosecutor's story that caught my eye:

Gast-King (the prosecuting attorney) said the Seahawks never contacted her before they made Clark their second-round pick last week. The team has said it conducted a thorough investigation and is convinced that Clark did not strike Hurt, despite her statement to police that night that he had “punched her in the face.’’

So if the Seahawks didn't talk to the prosecuting attorney, didn't talk to any of the witnesses at the scene, just who in the hell did they talk to in this very extensive investigation of theirs?

That's the part that caught your eye? I noticed that as well but also noticed the fact that she said after talking to Hurt she got a new view on what happened in that hotel room and that things weren't as they seemed in the initial police report? IMO, that is also pretty important. I don't have a problem with the Hawks not interviewing the 'witnesses' as I don't think they really witnessed anything except for the aftermath. I am a little surprised they wouldn't have interviewed the prosecuting attorney though.

[HumanCockroach]

There was a LOT in that link Bob, thanks,and the prosecutor makes it abundantly clear that after talking to both parties extensively this wasn't some clear cut guy abusing a woman, and makes it fairly clear that both parties were responsible. While it does not absolve him from his blame in the situation, and does not say he did not hit Hurt, its fairly clear this was not a straight forward DV case.

Lots in there, lots to digest, but ultimately, I don't believe in the "condemnation" for life, and am willing to see if the guy can continue to fly right. Carroll notoriously gives people second chances, should they stumble again, he jettisons them quickly. Clark owns his share of responsibility, but he wasn't the only person in that room, and obviously the prosecuting attorney ALSO felt that way as well ( including the MOTHER of Hurt, Hurt herself). Something obviously happened in that room, but ultimately we are back to square one, which was unless you were in the room, you don't know what happened.

[savvyman]

You know I am getting tired of society letting every asshole off the hook for doing or saying despicable things as long as "They Apologize" and/or say they are in counseling or something like that.

It really negatively exploded today. I think the national media is 95% against the Hawks pick right now. I'm sure Barrack will weigh in soon, but amazing how few are against Winston the Rapist. Go figure! All his victim did is have her story told in a movie about how rape is blown off at college campuses.

Savvyman, I understand your position, but know that nationally, 90% of first time offenders do not go to jail, other then the night they were arrested. On top of that, most go to a 'diversion program' that not only avoids jail time, but usually after 3-5 years can wipe off the crime completely. This is an unfair but true standard of law. One of the biggest issues of prosecution is that the 'victim' won't testify or if she does In a court, he said - she said is a win for the defense.

It's not just football players. That's what you all need to get over. These crimes are rarely punished. Not that they shouldn't be. They just aren't.

Yeah I agree.

My comment was also about feelings in the recent past as I have watched numerous people in sports, entertainment, business & politics who when they behave very badly or express their true nature in comments about something that are harmful to others - they break out the PR playbook and issue a phony apology and maybe even go on some multiple talk shows where they express their phony shame multiple times. It s for the most part Bullsh@t and I wish people did not allow this. Sometimes the actions and words are so bad that an apology and repenting is not enough - the person should just dissapear from the public eye for at least awhile.

An Up-coming example of this will be Hillary Clinton. I not entirely up on all the details but she apparently used her personal email for all of her Secretary of State correspondence. This is a violation of law. When she was ordered to turn over the personal emails that were actually related to her work as Secretary of State to the US Government - Whoopsie - they were magically and mistakenly all erased. She will get away with this too.

Furthermore - her and her husband have received so many foundation contributions from so many shady figures in Governments from around the world - many of them have the worst Human Rights policies and practices towards Women (which is so hypocritical because both Hillary and Bill are feminist who supposedly believe in strong rights from women) - yet they have received contributions from people in Regimes around the world who are completely hostile to the most basic of human rights for women.

The reason I bring up Hilary because you watch - it will be an up-coming example of what I mean about these assholes behaving badly - getting caught - and then they issue their bogus apology - and the public forgives them. This kind of behavior noted above by Hillary is an example of the kind of behavior that should be unforgivable by the public and she should be rejected as a candidate for anything. But you watch - they know the playbook for manipulating the public into forgiving them for their in-excusable behavior. In fact you can be damm sure that they know even at the exact moment when they are behaving badly - Like taking Millions of dollars from Governments that treat women in the same respect as livestock - that if they are ever caught they will go implement game plan from the PR playbook for apologizing and faking shame - and then introducing new policies "So this Never Happens again" - and watch as they will get away once again with this bad behavior.

This is BS. Back to my original point that I am "getting tired of society letting every asshole off the hook for doing or saying despicable things as long as "They Apologize" and/or say they are in counseling or something like that". _ We should stop doing this and just tell certain individuals who behave very badly to just go away and dissapear from our public life - for at least awhile anyway.

[RiverDog]

That's the part that caught your eye? I noticed that as well but also noticed the fact that she said after talking to Hurt she got a new view on what happened in that hotel room and that things weren't as they seemed in the initial police report? IMO, that is also pretty important. I don't have a problem with the Hawks not interviewing the 'witnesses' as I don't think they really witnessed anything except for the aftermath. I am a little surprised they wouldn't have interviewed the prosecuting attorney though.

I don't blame the DA for offering the deal. Given the fact that the victim was not seeking that justice be served and that it seems reasonable that the girl was more than just a helpless victim, that she aggravated the situation, not that it's an excuse. I'll respect the DA's judgment as well as those of the counselors. They were closer to the situation than I am and see far more cases like these than do I.

My main beef continues to be with the Seahawks, which is why the statement that they had not contacted the DA 'caught my eye'. Their on field success seems to make them think that they can tell us anything and we'll treat it as if it's the gospel truth.

[mykc14]

The Prosecutor in his case wanted to make sure she cleared some stuff up from her interview yesterday. She wants to be clear that she does not believe that Clark punched or slapped Hurt during the altercation.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/5/7/8566 ... -schneider

[savvyman]

The upside of all this noise over the pick of Clark is that he has to realize that he has no room for error in the choices that he makes moving forward and this should help (hopefully) to motivate him to learn from this and not repeat the same behavior again.

As Bob kinda said - an its true in life - the more talented\Higher performing employees or the best customers of any business are always allowed more room for "Bad Behavior" than the average or under-performing employes and customers.

Pro Football Focus loves the football related part of the Clark pick - here is what they have to say:

>>>>>Round 2: Frank Clark, ED, Michigan

Grade A

Leaving aside the domestic violence situation (and the exhaustive, or otherwise, investigation into it that the Seahawks carried out), there is no doubting that Clark is a great player on the field. Before being dismissed from the team, Clark had posted a impressive grade against both run and pass, and was one of the highest-graded edge defenders in the nation, despite having ‘only’ five sacks. In addition to those sacks he notched five hits and 25 hurries for 35 total pressures on just 421 snaps. His run defense grade was every bit as good, letting him tally 28 defensive stops.

Depth Chart Fit: Michael Bennett proved to the Seahawks that they don’t need a 330-pound Red Bryant manning one side of that line, and Clark has the ability to cover both Bennett and Avril’s role in the defense. Won’t start on either side immediately, but could contribute in the rotation.<<<<<<<


https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/05/01/2015-draft-in-review-seattle-seahawks/

[NorthHawk]

I watched 2 games he played in last year - one against Northwestern and the other against Rutgers.
I watched the Northwestern game first and came away wondering what they see in him.
Granted I'm not a scout and surely don't know what to look for in our system, but some things were quite apparent.
He was consistently among the last players to react to the snap.
He was erased from the play by the OT almost every play.
He never got close to a sack and had limited pressure.
He did knock down a pass.

Against Rutgers it was the same thing - and then I saw it.
Michigan changed their Defense and stood Clark up.
It was like a totally different player out there.
Suddenly he was involved in the play and created pressure.
They even moved him to the Mike (or at least he was standing in that position at the snap) and he got real good pressure up the middle.

If that Rutgers game is any indication, it looks like he will be a stand up rush end/LB even at 275+ lbs.

[savvyman]

Yeah I agree.

My comment was also about feelings in the recent past as I have watched numerous people in sports, entertainment, business & politics who when they behave very badly or express their true nature in comments about something that are harmful to others - they break out the PR playbook and issue a phony apology and maybe even go on some multiple talk shows where they express their phony shame multiple times. It s for the most part Bullsh@t and I wish people did not allow this. Sometimes the actions and words are so bad that an apology and repenting is not enough - the person should just dissapear from the public eye for at least awhile.

An Up-coming example of this will be Hillary Clinton. I not entirely up on all the details but she apparently used her personal email for all of her Secretary of State correspondence. This is a violation of law. When she was ordered to turn over the personal emails that were actually related to her work as Secretary of State to the US Government - Whoopsie - they were magically and mistakenly all erased. She will get away with this too.

Furthermore - her and her husband have received so many foundation contributions from so many shady figures in Governments from around the world - many of them have the worst Human Rights policies and practices towards Women (which is so hypocritical because both Hillary and Bill are feminist who supposedly believe in strong rights from women) - yet they have received contributions from people in Regimes around the world who are completely hostile to the most basic of human rights for women.

The reason I bring up Hilary because you watch - it will be an up-coming example of what I mean about these assholes behaving badly - getting caught - and then they issue their bogus apology - and the public forgives them. This kind of behavior noted above by Hillary is an example of the kind of behavior that should be unforgivable by the public and she should be rejected as a candidate for anything. But you watch - they know the playbook for manipulating the public into forgiving them for their in-excusable behavior. In fact you can be damm sure that they know even at the exact moment when they are behaving badly - Like taking Millions of dollars from Governments that treat women in the same respect as livestock - that if they are ever caught they will go implement game plan from the PR playbook for apologizing and faking shame - and then introducing new policies "So this Never Happens again" - and watch as they will get away once again with this bad behavior.

This is BS. Back to my original point that I am "getting tired of society letting every asshole off the hook for doing or saying despicable things as long as "They Apologize" and/or say they are in counseling or something like that". _ We should stop doing this and just tell certain individuals who behave very badly to just go away and dissapear from our public life - for at least awhile anyway.

Wow -That did not take long - Don't mean to turn this thread to a political one - see what I wrote above if interested and then read the news story today that is found below - just driving home the point of how the public should recognize and be aware of the bullsh@t and corruption of the entire ruling class and how the people that advance their agenda are protected and can get away with practically anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-not-review-clinton-ethics-pledge-breaches-204846487.html


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Reuters) - The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family's charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.

Clinton, now the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat.

She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations.

In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.

The State Department "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, but does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.

"The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton's tenure," Rathke told reporters.

The broken ethics agreement has made it harder for Clinton to deflect accusations in recent weeks that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns can instead curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name.

The charities accepted new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria.

The governments of Australia and the United Kingdom, which were already funding projects at the time Clinton signed her ethics agreement, increased their funding by millions of dollars during this period.

The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations. In two instances, the charities said this was the result of "oversights"; for the other six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.

The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated list omitted donors to the foundation's flagship health initiative.

Rathke, the State Department spokesman, said the department was not aware of donations having an undue influence on U.S. foreign policy. When reporters asked how the department could know this without reviewing the belated disclosures, he declined to comment further. <<<<<<<<<<