How many 'Election Cycles' does one wait, before getting a Good Person? How much harm is done waiting?

Youre not supposed to wait until a good person comes along. It is up to the voters to vote for the good person from the start. But if no one cares and only the extremists bother to show up at primaries, indeed you will get stuck with a pool of idiots of which the biggest idiot gets to run for president.

If only a bunch of people show up during congressional elections, again its going to be a pool of idiots who run for congress of which the biggest idiot gets to go to Washington. Democracy doesn't work if such a large group of people decides to passively wait it out until once every 30 years someone comes along that looks like a good candidate.

Your best way to get the least damaging government (as you put it) is if you constantly show up, with everyone else, to vote for who appears to be the least damaging politician. Sadly, Americans have failed to do this and now the extremists have hijacked the elections since extremists are the only ones who bother to show up these days. And as a result, extremists get a bigger vote than everyone else and the politicians are going to be pandering to those extremists. Which results in devastating idiocy in Washington. But that is on you, the voter.

Until?

So, while waiting for that Valhalla: How do we reduce the power of those who are lying, or incompetent?

Still waiting the for Good King?

Well the alternative is to make it very clear to the guy that got elected that unless he does what he promised, hes going to have a problem during the next elections. And given that politicians want nothing more than to be reelected, they will listen once you make enough noise.

We were talking personal responsibility. It is the personal responsibility of anyone eligible to vote to take note what the government does and make it absolutely clear to their representatives the moment the government does something you do not like.

Myself, by voting out the guy who is incompetent or by making it clear that I will vote for whoever promises to deal with government fraud when he/she gets elected.

Мишель..

Do you REALLY believe in "promises"?

No, but if he doesn't follow up on that promise my vote will go to the next guy, until we get someone that does what they promised.

Мишель,

Either you are just missing my point, or you are deliberately avoiding facing it.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 *MADE* it the CEO's job to make sure that the financial statements are correct. In order for them to do so, they *NEED* to make sure there is no fraud/corruption going on.

Yes, but do you honestly believe that a CEO will go over the numbers himself? He is a CEO not an accountant. He has people do that for him. All he needs to do is say he trusts those people, those people promised him that the numbers were correct and the CEO now has plausible deniability, he covered his basis and he cannot convicted anymore.

Let us look a bit further at the REASON for Sarbanes-Oxley... ENRON.

There was, it turns out, an AWFUL lot of fraud/corruption going on at ENRON.

In the end, CFO (chief financial officer) Fastow in a plea deal plead guilty to 2 charges out of the 98 against him, was sentenced to 10 years in prison (w/ no parole) and turned state's evidence against the others.

Former CEO Skilling was convicted on 19 of 28 counts against him, and sentenced to 24 years, 4 months.

Current CEO Lay was convicted on 6 of 11 counts against him, and was subject to 45 years in prison, but he died before sentencing.

CAO (chief accounting officer) Causey plead guilty on 6 counts, and received a seven year prison sentence.


These were very well to do people, with access to the best lawyers. Where were all of those 'get out of jail free' card you keep mentioning? 3 of the 4 did (or is doing) serious prison time (the 4th one, Lay, died before he could be sentenced, else he would have done time (a LONG time) himself).

Ah yes, Enron. You realize that you have shady business practices, fraud and Enron. Enron is what you get when a business literally goes out of its way to be as corrupt and criminal as possible. And sure, if you go Enron then yes, you are going to be convicted. In the case of Enron it wasn't that difficult because upper management was very much aware of what was happening, they wanted it to happen like that. There was absolutely no way for them to have plausible deniability. So sure, no amount of money could save these people from going to jail.

But, this is Enron. Most other companies that engage in shady behavior are not Enron. They are not so blatantly corrupt like Enron. And since Enron, you can be sure that upper management will make sure that they have plausible deniability should they ever be dragged to court.

What I AM saying is that Government *must* be held to at least the same, if not higher, standards.

Yes, sure, they should be held at a high standard. And there should be an investigation into what happened to that 6 billion. What I'm saying is that a high standard is not just going after who ever was in the executive position at that time simply because its the executive position. I believe a high standard is rooting out whoever was directly involved in losing that money and perhaps the people that were supposed to check it. If the people in the executive position were aware or even involved in losing that money, then sure they should be implicated. But it just to simplistic to simply say 'this one person is ultimately responsible for what happens in this huge organization with thousands of employees' because that is an unrealistic responsibility.

After all, in a Corporation, only those involved lose out on their money.

Could also involve public funds. Pension funds investing in stocks of a certain company and then losing out when the company goes broke can mean a lot of pension savers lose their money and their pensions (didn't that happen with Enron as well?).

In Government, the incompetent hold far more danger to us all.

In business AND Government, the incompetent need to be fired and shown the door, ASAP.

Just remember who got that incompetent their job in the first place. And remember how to take it away. Its not that hard, especially in a democracy.

I am personally at a loss why you are defending the Corrupt/Incompetent in Government. I am personally at a loss why you dispute Personal Responsibility.

Because Hilary Clinton is not personally responsible for everything that happens at such a large organization. Sure, you can pretend she is because that makes it easy to go after someone when it goes wrong. But really, do you think she was personally involved when someone at her department gave out a government contract? No, she probably wasn't. Hence personal responsibility makes no sense. It is blaming someone for something they had no control over. That is unfair.

Perhaps you believe that Government is there to rescue you from Corrupt / Incompetent Business. Maybe so, in some cases. But when the Corrupt / Incompetent is *IN* Government, who is gonna save you then?

Myself, by voting out the guy who is incompetent or by making it clear that I will vote for whoever promises to deal with government fraud when he/she gets elected.

Oh, things are becoming clearer. You hate the USA and Corporations because you had a bad experience with a couple of silly little computer games... gotcha.

Oh nice reply. Yes, I must hate corporations and the United States because they messed up some computer games, sure. If thats what you got out of my post you seriously missed the point, namely that private corporations make big mistakes as well and are not nearly as efficient as a whole group of people like to think. Those were simply examples of private corporations vastly underestimating the server load and as a result had a disastrous launch.

Мишель:

Willfully/knowingly will be assumed by the court. The only defense on this is for the CEO to claim "I am a stupid dumba**"... which then begs the question, "If you are such a stupid dumba**, why are you the CEO?"

If it gets you out of jail I would certainly pretend to be an idiot who doesn't know anything about what happens at my own corporation. After all, the courts have don't have the power to fire me, and even if afterwards I get fired I probably got some clause in my contract that entitles me to some massive golden parachute. See if I care if I look like an idiot if it gets me out of jail and a few million richer. And worry about getting a job? Meh, for a CEO like that its not to difficult to get hired again at some other company.

And don't believe me? Just look at the congressional hearings of the big bank CEO's after the financial crisis hit. Pay close attention to their answers which consist mostly out of 'I have no recollection of whatever you are asking me'.

Also, these are Jury Trials. Most people in the USA are not too fond of "Rich Corporate CEOs", and are more likely to believe the prosecution than the defense.

Be that as it may, those CEO are filthy rich, can hire the best lawyers in the country and can probably get a plea deal. Or they can talk a jury over. Might be that they don't like me, but if they cannot prove that I was explicitly aware that whatever I signed off as false (and that is nearly impossible to prove) I am not going to get convicted of anything.

Nope. False financial statement => CEO is screwed...

Yeah, which is why all the CEO's of all the major banks are now on trial or in jail. Oh right, they all got a plea deal or prosecutors didn't even bother to go after them.

Мишель,

Either you are just missing my point, or you are deliberately avoiding facing it.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 *MADE* it the CEO's job to make sure that the financial statements are correct. In order for them to do so, they *NEED* to make sure there is no fraud/corruption going on.

Let us look a bit further at the REASON for Sarbanes-Oxley... ENRON.

There was, it turns out, an AWFUL lot of fraud/corruption going on at ENRON.

In the end, CFO (chief financial officer) Fastow in a plea deal plead guilty to 2 charges out of the 98 against him, was sentenced to 10 years in prison (w/ no parole) and turned state's evidence against the others.

Former CEO Skilling was convicted on 19 of 28 counts against him, and sentenced to 24 years, 4 months.

Current CEO Lay was convicted on 6 of 11 counts against him, and was subject to 45 years in prison, but he died before sentencing.

CAO (chief accounting officer) Causey plead guilty on 6 counts, and received a seven year prison sentence.


These were very well to do people, with access to the best lawyers. Where were all of those 'get out of jail free' card you keep mentioning? 3 of the 4 did (or is doing) serious prison time (the 4th one, Lay, died before he could be sentenced, else he would have done time (a LONG time) himself).

I am NOT saying that business never does any hanky-panky funny business. Of COURSE they do. And it is WRONG and CRIMINAL.

What I AM saying is that Government *must* be held to at least the same, if not higher, standards.

After all, in a Corporation, only those involved lose out on their money.

In Government, the so-called 'Public Servants' it is public money. Tax money collected from people. Money that SHOULD go to providing Government services. Waste, fraud, and abuse hurts EVERYONE.

In business and Government, the corrupt need to be jailed.

In business, the incompetent will, sooner or later, cause a bankruptcy.

In Government, the incompetent hold far more danger to us all.

In business AND Government, the incompetent need to be fired and shown the door, ASAP.

I am personally at a loss why you are defending the Corrupt/Incompetent in Government. I am personally at a loss why you dispute Personal Responsibility.

Perhaps you believe that Government is there to rescue you from Corrupt / Incompetent Business. Maybe so, in some cases. But when the Corrupt / Incompetent is *IN* Government, who is gonna save you then?

Oh, things are becoming clearer. You hate the USA and Corporations because you had a bad experience with a couple of silly little computer games... gotcha.

Oh nice reply. Yes, I must hate corporations and the United States because they messed up some computer games, sure. If thats what you got out of my post you seriously missed the point, namely that private corporations make big mistakes as well and are not nearly as efficient as a whole group of people like to think. Those were simply examples of private corporations vastly underestimating the server load and as a result had a disastrous launch.

Мишель:

Willfully/knowingly will be assumed by the court. The only defense on this is for the CEO to claim "I am a stupid dumba**"... which then begs the question, "If you are such a stupid dumba**, why are you the CEO?"

If it gets you out of jail I would certainly pretend to be an idiot who doesn't know anything about what happens at my own corporation. After all, the courts have don't have the power to fire me, and even if afterwards I get fired I probably got some clause in my contract that entitles me to some massive golden parachute. See if I care if I look like an idiot if it gets me out of jail and a few million richer. And worry about getting a job? Meh, for a CEO like that its not to difficult to get hired again at some other company.

And don't believe me? Just look at the congressional hearings of the big bank CEO's after the financial crisis hit. Pay close attention to their answers which consist mostly out of 'I have no recollection of whatever you are asking me'.

Also, these are Jury Trials. Most people in the USA are not too fond of "Rich Corporate CEOs", and are more likely to believe the prosecution than the defense.

Be that as it may, those CEO are filthy rich, can hire the best lawyers in the country and can probably get a plea deal. Or they can talk a jury over. Might be that they don't like me, but if they cannot prove that I was explicitly aware that whatever I signed off as false (and that is nearly impossible to prove) I am not going to get convicted of anything.

Nope. False financial statement => CEO is screwed...

Yeah, which is why all the CEO's of all the major banks are now on trial or in jail. Oh right, they all got a plea deal or prosecutors didn't even bother to go after them.

It is NOT weak to criticize her on this. She should have known.

As to personal responsibility, the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 requires corporate CEOs to personally certify that the periodic financial statements submitted to the SEC be correct. Willfully violating this by knowingly signing a false statement carries a penalty of up to 20 YEARS in prison and a $5 million fine. This makes it necessary for the CEO to keep abreast of things... to KNOW what is going on.

See the words I put in bold? Those are the words the bill uses.

In The USA: 'Willfully' and 'knowingly' are in MOST Criminal Laws.

Quite correct, CLYDE.

Мишель:

Willfully/knowingly will be assumed by the court. The only defense on this is for the CEO to claim "I am a stupid dumba**"... which then begs the question, "If you are such a stupid dumba**, why are you the CEO?"

Also, these are Jury Trials. Most people in the USA are not too fond of "Rich Corporate CEOs", and are more likely to believe the prosecution than the defense.

Nope. False financial statement => CEO is screwed...

Just look at the disaster that was SimCity 2013 or Diablo 3, both games with an online component, both games designed by private corporations and both games didn't work properly for weeks. In the case of SimCity it was even so bad EA was forced to give out free games as compensation for their horrible launch disaster.

Oh, things are becoming clearer. You hate the USA and Corporations because you had a bad experience with a couple of silly little computer games... gotcha.

It is NOT weak to criticize her on this. She should have known.

As to personal responsibility, the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 requires corporate CEOs to personally certify that the periodic financial statements submitted to the SEC be correct. Willfully violating this by knowingly signing a false statement carries a penalty of up to 20 YEARS in prison and a $5 million fine. This makes it necessary for the CEO to keep abreast of things... to KNOW what is going on.

See the words I put in bold? Those are the words the bill uses. This bill has no teeth. All a CEO has to say is that the record he signed was the record he believed to be correct. Therefor, if the record is false, he didn't knowingly falsified it therefor he is not responsible.

http://beta.congress.gov//bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763/text

See section 906 (c)(1) and section 906 (c)(2).

The final bill passed the US Senate by a vote of 99 for, 0 against, 1 abstention.

The final bill passed the US House by a vote of 423 for, 3 against, 8 abstentions.

As you can see from the votes, this bill enjoyed wide public support. About the only ones against it were, in my opinion, the CEOs themselves.

Sure, everyone supports it, but I'm pretty sure the CEO's themselves don't care. They know its easy for them to get around this. But seriously, congress passing laws that would hurt their favorite protected species? Please.

So, why hold public employees to a lesser standard than employees of private corporations? Hillary Clinton was effectively the 'CEO' of the US State Department. SHE should have been quite a bit more pro-active in finding out about such things, especially since it wasn't corporate revenue/profits but Tax Money that was being... misplaced/misspent. Corporations pull crap, it just hurts the stockholders in that corporation. Government officials pull crap, it hurts ALL the US Taxpayers.

I don't know what Clinton's rule was like and I cannot assess whether she has done enough to check for fraud and corruption on her department. At the same time, I wonder whether that is something she should have focused on. Combating fraud seems to me something that should be checked for in the day to day operations, no real need for upper management to get involved. They are just there to deal with the president and the broad policy lines they want to implement.

And yes, I know that 'all of them' do it, not just Ms. Clinton. But then, I had the report on her tenure handy. Perhaps the next President doesn't need to be some politician with a tainted track record, but instead a CEO of a large Corporation that is USED to running things the right way. Something to think about.

Oh please, if you think corporations are any less wasteful than the government you are sorely mistaken. The larger the organization and the more money they deal with, the easier it is for money to fall through the cracks and the harder it gets for any control mechanisms to control everyone. If you think that corporations are more efficient than the government you are deluding yourself. Healthcare.gov was a disaster, sure, but do you think private organizations are any better at it? Just look at the disaster that was SimCity 2013 or Diablo 3, both games with an online component, both games designed by private corporations and both games didn't work properly for weeks. In the case of SimCity it was even so bad EA was forced to give out free games as compensation for their horrible launch disaster.

Byron, thank you for all of your kind wishes of goodwill.

I must say I have to second that:)

Good morning everyone!

Good morning ... or night ... or afternoon ... as the case maybe .... to all in our SETI@home community,

where ever you happen ... to be on our only home .....

tiny little planet Earth ..... _ :)

be kind and gentle to one another

and ... God Bless, all you all :)

I hope you all had or will have a wonderful Day

Best Wishes
Byron
Vancouver
Canada
:)

I hope and pray that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016 just my opinion :)

What exactly has she ever done?

Well, We can hope that the mayor of Toronto can be the next PM of Canada, You know the crack smoking guy.

Clyde, She didnt do squat for the Benghazi folks. Maybe she wanted to but got told to forget it. And then was thrown under the bus. And she took it. She lacks fortitude of the gut kind.

---

[/quote]

Old James

I dont even think Ms. Clinton will run. Way to much baggage. Espaecially since her stint as Sec. of state.
Her best shot was running against Obama in 08. But she quit. Or should I say was bribed to quit?

As a president she would be worse than Obama.

---

[/quote]

Old James

If Ms. Clinton can't even keep the corruption and incompetence out of the US State Department over a 6-year time period, what chance does she have to manage the ENTIRE Federal Government's Executive branch for 8 or even 4 years?

See, that is the problem of using that personal responsibility logic. It leads to statements like this. What happened here in reality has nothing to do with her capabilities to run the entire government. I highly doubt that it was just under her watch that suddenly they misplaced 6 billion dollars. And even then, she had nothing to do with it. It are her underlings that misbehaved and acted corrupt. But in order for Clinton to deal with those issues she first needs to be aware of them. To be aware of them requires someone telling her that something fishy is going on. If no one bothers to tell her, how can you reasonably expect her to go after the people that were misplacing all the money? You expect her to be able to read minds and magically become aware that something fishy is going on? That is not realistic.

Unless you can show that she was aware of what was going on on her department but didn't bother to act its weak to criticize her on this.

It is NOT weak to criticize her on this. She should have known.

As to personal responsibility, the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 requires corporate CEOs to personally certify that the periodic financial statements submitted to the SEC be correct. Willfully violating this by knowingly signing a false statement carries a penalty of up to 20 YEARS in prison and a $5 million fine. This makes it necessary for the CEO to keep abreast of things... to KNOW what is going on.

To make it easy on you...


http://beta.congress.gov//bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763/text

See section 906 (c)(1) and section 906 (c)(2).

The final bill passed the US Senate by a vote of 99 for, 0 against, 1 abstention.

The final bill passed the US House by a vote of 423 for, 3 against, 8 abstentions.

As you can see from the votes, this bill enjoyed wide public support. About the only ones against it were, in my opinion, the CEOs themselves.

So, why hold public employees to a lesser standard than employees of private corporations? Hillary Clinton was effectively the 'CEO' of the US State Department. SHE should have been quite a bit more pro-active in finding out about such things, especially since it wasn't corporate revenue/profits but Tax Money that was being... misplaced/misspent. Corporations pull crap, it just hurts the stockholders in that corporation. Government officials pull crap, it hurts ALL the US Taxpayers.

And yes, I know that 'all of them' do it, not just Ms. Clinton. But then, I had the report on her tenure handy. Perhaps the next President doesn't need to be some politician with a tainted track record, but instead a CEO of a large Corporation that is USED to running things the right way. Something to think about.

And no, I am not trashing Secretary Clinton over Benghazi, Libya, even though an acquaintance of mine DIED in that attack. This is only about her lax management of money in HER OWN Department, and what that says about her ability to manage the entire Executive branch if she is elected President.

If Ms. Clinton can't even keep the corruption and incompetence out of the US State Department over a 6-year time period, what chance does she have to manage the ENTIRE Federal Government's Executive branch for 8 or even 4 years?

See, that is the problem of using that personal responsibility logic. It leads to statements like this. What happened here in reality has nothing to do with her capabilities to run the entire government. I highly doubt that it was just under her watch that suddenly they misplaced 6 billion dollars. And even then, she had nothing to do with it. It are her underlings that misbehaved and acted corrupt. But in order for Clinton to deal with those issues she first needs to be aware of them. To be aware of them requires someone telling her that something fishy is going on. If no one bothers to tell her, how can you reasonably expect her to go after the people that were misplacing all the money? You expect her to be able to read minds and magically become aware that something fishy is going on? That is not realistic.

Unless you can show that she was aware of what was going on on her department but didn't bother to act its weak to criticize her on this.

Regardless of any personal involvement in these matters, Ms. Clinton was the head of the US State Department during most all of the 6-year time frame covered. Corruption or incompetence, it doesn't matter. The 'buck stops' at her (unless, or course, you want it to go higher and stop at HER boss.

Yeah, that is true. But I always found that a rather short sighted and stupid attitude. Here in the Netherlands the ministers are also ultimately responsible for what goes on on their departments and quite often it happens that people working at those departments blatantly lie to the minister, which results in the minister misinforming the parliament. Parliament gets angry at the minister (easy way for the opposition to attack the government) for misinforming them. But honestly, is it realistic to expect that one guy, who placed there and works there for at best 8 years (often less) to be responsible for everything that happens on that department. I mean, these ministers depend completely on their underlings to properly inform them and if those underlings don't properly inform them, then what can the ministers do?

I find it rather weird to be angry at the boss for the misbehavings of people that work way down the line and who are in almost complete control over what the boss gets to hear.

President Truman had a sign on his desk. 'The Buck Stops Here.'




It was Secretary Clinton's job to make sure that all the stuff on her watch was being done in accordance with the law. Her personal RESPONSIBILITY. But then, personal responsibility seems to be such a foreign concept these days.

When schizz happens at large corporations these days, who do many want to go after? The CEO.

When schizz happened back under President Nixon, and G Gordon Liddy organized and carried out the Watergate breakin, who got held responsible? Yes, Liddy did do time in prison over it, but Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace.

When the US State Department loses a LOT of money, who should be held responsible?

Remember, $6 Billion. That is about US$ 20.00 for every man, woman, and child in the US. EACH.

The average income in the USA for 2011 was about $50,000.00 per household. That $6 Billion is the total yearly income for 120 Thousand 'average' US Households.

And the US State Department just LOSES it (through a combination of incompetence and corruption)....

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

If Ms. Clinton can't even keep the corruption and incompetence out of the US State Department over a 6-year time period, what chance does she have to manage the ENTIRE Federal Government's Executive branch for 8 or even 4 years?

Regardless of any personal involvement in these matters, Ms. Clinton was the head of the US State Department during most all of the 6-year time frame covered. Corruption or incompetence, it doesn't matter. The 'buck stops' at her (unless, or course, you want it to go higher and stop at HER boss.

Yeah, that is true. But I always found that a rather short sighted and stupid attitude. Here in the Netherlands the ministers are also ultimately responsible for what goes on on their departments and quite often it happens that people working at those departments blatantly lie to the minister, which results in the minister misinforming the parliament. Parliament gets angry at the minister (easy way for the opposition to attack the government) for misinforming them. But honestly, is it realistic to expect that one guy, who placed there and works there for at best 8 years (often less) to be responsible for everything that happens on that department. I mean, these ministers depend completely on their underlings to properly inform them and if those underlings don't properly inform them, then what can the ministers do?

I find it rather weird to be angry at the boss for the misbehavings of people that work way down the line and who are in almost complete control over what the boss gets to hear.

I hope and pray that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016 just my opinion :)

Byron, thank you for all of your kind wishes of goodwill.

I must say I have to second that:)

Good morning everyone!

Good morning ... or night ... or afternoon ... as the case maybe .... to all in our SETI@home community,

where ever you happen ... to be on our only home .....

tiny little planet Earth ..... _ :)

be kind and gentle to one another

and ... God Bless, all you all :)

I hope you all had or will have a wonderful Day

Best Wishes
Byron
Vancouver
Canada
:)

Have you looked at our recently re-elected president? (What DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW president elect Hillary Clinton will be our next president, but not because of her agenda.)

I didn't say that America has not been making any progress in the fight against racism. But just because you elected one black president doesn't mean racism is now no longer a problem. Again, refer to the links I posted about this. Minorities are still overly represented in the prison system, more often receive punishments compared to white people for the same crime, and the punishments they get are generally harsher than what white people would get for the same crime, and minorities still have a harder time getting jobs.

Have you looked at the make up of our supreme court?

Thats great but again, it doesn't mean racism is no longer a big problem. It just means its less of a big problem than before.

Five of our governors are women, 4 of whom are attacked viciously and regularly by our LIBERAL PRESS. Is the LIBERAL PRESS sexist?

That means 10% of the states have female governors while women make up roughly 50% of the population. If anything that only shows that women still have a long way to go. Also, the press attacking female governors is only sexist if they are attacking them on the fact that they are women. Does that happen? Are they accusing those governors of being bad governors because they are females?

Meanwhile, cue in Fox news complaining about Hillary Clinton, making comments about her age and speculating on the problems that being a female and president would bring. Not to mention the amount of idiots I've heard saying that female presidents are bad because they might bomb a country when they are on their period or something idiotic like that.

Deluding? Massive problem? What "group think" are you a part of?

Sadly I don't even need to ask what 'group think' you are part of.

Мишель:

In response to both you and Guy (whose post you quoted has been edited), I don't think that Hillary Clinton would be a good choice.

Witness this news story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/?page=all#pagebreak

Original Source material (report from the Office of Inspector General):
http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/224580.pdf

US$6 Billion worth of contractual funny business, including one contract (for a value of $52 Million) awarded to a company owned by the spouse of the person handling the contract.

Regardless of any personal involvement in these matters, Ms. Clinton was the head of the US State Department during most all of the 6-year time frame covered. Corruption or incompetence, it doesn't matter. The 'buck stops' at her (unless, or course, you want it to go higher and stop at HER boss.