New revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary

JosephsDreams · Aug 24, 2016

[h=1]New revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary Clinton[/h][FONT=&quot]By David Harsanyi
[/FONT]
August 23, 2016 | 7:56pm
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Modal Trigger
Hillary ClintonPhoto: AP
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][h=3]MORE ON:[/h][h=6]CLINTON FOUNDATION[/h]
[h=5]The only question left for Hillary — what else are you hiding?[/h]
[h=5]Hillary's a terrible liar -- and it could doom her presidency[/h]
[h=5]Majority of Clinton Foundation donors got special access to Hillary[/h]
[h=5]Here's how cozy State Department was with Clinton Foundation[/h]

[/FONT]
The Democratic Party often warns us that mixing big money and politics will corrupt democracy. They must have nominated Hillary Clinton to prove it.
The Clinton Foundation was ostensibly set up to solve the world’s most pressing problems. Though it’s done some fine work, its most fruitful program has been leveraging Clinton’s position in the State Department to enrich her family, friends and cronies.
It’s against federal law for charities to act in the interests of private business or individuals. Yet the Clinton Foundation secured high-paying gigs for its namesakes and helped for-profit corporations with family ties set up lucrative deals.
As it turns out, that’s probably the least corrupt part of the story.
It is becoming clear the foundation was a center of influence peddling. Rock stars. Soccer players. Conglomerates. Crown princes. All of them paid in. All of them expected access to the US government.
Want a seat on a government intelligence-advisory board even though you have no relevant experience? The Clinton Foundation may be able to help.
Recently released e-mails prove the charity’s officials had sought access to State Department personnel while Hillary was in charge. Folks like the prince of Bahrain, who donated $32 million to the foundation, needed to get in touch.
An Associated Press investigation finds that more than half the private citizens who met or spoke with Clinton while she was secretary of state also happened to donate to her foundation. What are the odds?

The New York Post’s front cover for August 24, 2016It’s implausible that a majority of the 154 citizens — people who’d kicked in at least $156 million to her charity — would also happen to catch Clinton’s ear as she toiled away at State. It’s also worth remembering this list doesn’t even include officials from the 16 governments — many of them autocrats — who threw the foundation another $170 million.
Recently, the foundation announced it would ban donations from corporations and foreign countries if Hillary is elected president. The question is: If it’s a conflict of interest when Hillary will be president, why wasn’t it a problem when she was secretary of state?
Let’s also not forget that during Clinton’s tenure at State she failed to disclose that regimes across the world were giving her charity hundreds of millions. Because she needed to hid this, she ended up sending 110 e-mails containing classified information — eight of which had “top secret” information, according to the FBI.
These days, Hillary brazenly goes on Jimmy Kimmel to clown around about her “boring” e-mails.
Well, if they’re so irrelevant, why was she hiding them from the Justice Department? If it’s no big deal, why did it take four years and a lawsuit against the State Department to gain access to her planning schedules? Why did she lie to the American people? Erase tens of thousands of e-mails? Set up a private server in the first place?
Hillary claims running the State Department gave her the experience and temperament necessary to be president. But if anything, it reminds us of the Clintons’ propensity for scandal and dishonesty. And if Clinton wins this year, she’ll become the most ethically compromised president in contemporary times. Perhaps ever.

JosephsDreams · Aug 24, 2016

JosephsDreams · Aug 24, 2016

[h=1]Hillary’s a terrible liar — and it could doom her presidential bid[/h][FONT=&quot]By John Podhoretz
[/FONT]
August 23, 2016 | 8:33pm
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Modal Trigger
Hillary ClintonPhoto: Getty Images
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][h=3]MORE FROM:[/h][h=6]JOHN PODHORETZ[/h]

[/FONT]
The singular Nebraska politician (and later New School president) Bob Kerrey once observed of a fellow moderate Democrat: “Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar. Unusually good.”
I don’t think this is something people would say about his wife.
That Hillary Clinton is a liar is now inarguable. Indeed, it’s gotten so inarguable that people who dare argue she isn’t a liar are almost certainly lying, too — though, perhaps, only to themselves, to keep their spirits up.
The problem for Hillary’s apologists is that she’s so incredibly bad at it.
Bill’s brilliant lies provided cover for his defenders. Hillary’s lousy lies make her defenders look like fools. The pair of revelations in the past week demonstrates this.
First we learned she had told the FBI her plan to set up a private server for her e-mails had been presented to her as a welcome gift by her predecessor Colin Powell at a State Department dinner. At that point, the defenders came out in full force — see, it wasn’t her idea, and it had been done before, and so what!
Whereupon Powell first said he had no recollection of saying any such thing to her, and then angrily told a reporter he’d mentioned using AOL for his private correspondence a year after she’d set up the private server at home to handle all her communications.
“They’re trying to pin it on me,” said Powell, who has no dog in this fight and no reason to lie. Unlike Hillary.
So, on Twitter, the Hillary defenders found themselves resorting to the lamest sort of anti-Powell argle-bargle — “nyah nyah, Colin Powell said there were WMDs in Iraq.” Which is interesting, since Hillary Clinton also said there were WMDs in Iraq, and somehow they don’t go nyah nyah about her having said it.
The overall line of defense of Hillary then shifted to “she said this in unsworn testimony that should never have gone public.” Now that’s interesting, because it’s a little like someone else saying of the villain on an episode of Scooby-Doo that “she would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”
More important than this, perhaps, was the discovery that her two chief aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, were serving as transmission points between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation — the issue being what favors might be granted at State to the foundation’s donors and intimates.
“There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation,” Mrs. Clinton said last month. Bzzzzzt! And there goes the lie detector! Indeed, on Tuesday the AP revealed that more than half of the non-governmental meetings Clinton took while secretary of state were with foundation donors.
The lie detector also buzzed when she said she’d never forwarded any e-mails “marked classified,” which we now know she did.
As it did when she said she thought all her e-mails were somehow copied to a .gov e-mail address — something that only began happening at the State Department in 2015, two years after she quit.
As it did when she claimed in July 2015 that her e-mails had never been subpoenaed — a claim refuted the following day by Rep. Trey Gowdy, who said he had done so but had not made it public.
Bad lie after bad lie after bad lie after bad lie. It’s enough to make one remember how billing records from the Rose Law Firm, where she had worked in Arkansas, suddenly turned up in a closet on the third floor of the White House two years after she’d said they’d gone missing. They’d been under subpoena for two years.
That was 20 years ago. If she gets elected president and keeps going this way — and why wouldn’t she, really? — we can’t say we didn’t know and weren’t warned.
“This is more than Nixon ever sweated,” says a cameraman in the movie “Broadcast News” as Albert Brooks erupts in perspiration on the air.
Strictly in numerical terms, this is more than Nixon ever lied, too.

JosephsDreams · Aug 24, 2016

[h=1]Hillary’s worst scandal is that she really thinks she’s clean[/h][FONT=&quot]By Post Editorial Board
[/FONT]
August 24, 2016 | 9:00pm
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Modal Trigger
Photo: Reuters
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]Step back from the endless news of Clinton Foundation/Clinton State Department sleaze and Clinton e-mail abuse, and shake your head at this: Hillary Clinton still believes she did absolutely nothing wrong.
That jaw-dropper surfaced in Annie Karni’s report for Politico on the campaign’s damage-control efforts on the candidate’s scandals: Hillary’s minions plan to just “ride out” the clock to Election Day — “a strategy born … of a belief held deeply by Clinton herself that the e-mail controversy is a fake scandal.”
A year and a half after news of her use of a home-brewed server — plainly, to shield her work communications from Freedom of Information laws — Clinton still sees the whole thing as “nothing more than a partisan attack,” Karni writes after talking to top campaign aides.
Right, because FBI Director Jim Comey was a Republican tool when he condemned Clinton’s conduct — which exposed thousands of classified e-mails to hackers — as “extremely careless.”
The Associated Press must be partisan, too: This week it reported that more than half of the people outside government who met with Secretary of State Clinton had donated in some way to the Clinton Foundation.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who got face time with the secretary had donated to the foundation, according to State Department calendars released so far to the AP. Combined, the contributions total as much as $156 million.
And this, on top of multiple e-mail dumps showing Clinton’s top aides at State scrambling to arrange meetings and even jobs to please foundation donors.
Yet the Clintons plainly don’t think they ever did anything wrong. Why else refuse to shut the foundation down? Why now promise you’ll stop taking foreign or corporate donations at only some segments of the foundation, unless you think the giving is clean, because it’s all going to your cause?
Never mind the promises Clinton broke at State — to have the foundation take no foreign cash and insulate State decision-making from foundation influence; to safeguard classified info and ensure State had its own copies of all her work communiques . . .
If she makes it to the White House, be warned: Hillary Clinton will never stop breaking her word and the rules whenever she pleases, because in her mind whatever she does is ethical.

peacenik · Aug 24, 2016

^ the lies

the truth:

popeye · Aug 24, 2016

peacenik said:

"The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation."

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

peacenik · Aug 24, 2016

"New York Post"

Same paper that had an expose' of Melania Trump.

peacenik · Aug 24, 2016

American jobs for sale under Trump:

[video=youtube;X5s-m4ld7jo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5s-m4ld7jo[/video]

as traitor Trump said "I cannot make shirts in the USA"

gb9 · Aug 25, 2016

comparing trump with Hilary in this area is laughable. I think this women could rob a bank in broad daylight, and liberals would be trying to defend her, and pin it on someone else.

FlowersnJesus · Aug 25, 2016

How can anyone not see that she is the most crooked pol since the Tammeny hall group with all the info posted on this forum about Hill's sleazy behavior.

peacenik · Aug 25, 2016

FlowersnJesus said:

FAR worse things have been posted about Trump just in case you hadn't noticed. That's why he is whining so much about the media coverage he has gotten.

FlowersnJesus · Aug 26, 2016

FRIDAY, JUN 3, 2016 06:00 AM EDT[h=1]The Clintons’ arrogance might be their undoing: Hillary has a serious image problem — and blood-thirsty Republicans aren’t to blame[/h][h=2]For the Clintons, politics is a family business, which on its face is about accumulating wealth and gaining power[/h]CONOR LYNCH[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[*=center]Share1K
[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]
[FONT=&quot]Post

[/FONT]

[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]

[/FONT]
TOPICS: BERNIE SANDERS, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, DONALD TRUMP, EDITOR'S PICKS, ELECTIONS 2016,HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, ELECTIONS NEWS, SOCIAL NEWS, MEDIA NEWS, LIFE NEWS, NEWS,POLITICS NEWS
[FONT=&quot]

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton

(Credit: Reuters/Adrees Latif)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Donald Trump is not a man who needs any kind of assistance when it comes to coining insulting epithets or finding effective lines of attack on his political opponents. He has a vulgar, shameless, and sophomoric style that seems better suited for professional wrestling than presidential politics, and resembles a troll who gets off on provoking people, all to satisfy his desperate craving for attention. This unorthodox and brazen approach is unpredictable, and it could prove to be very potent against a conventional politician like Hillary Clinton, who has plenty of political and personal baggage for Trump to work with (which — it should be noted — her current opponent has refused to exploit).

Trump’s nickname for Clinton, “Crooked Hillary,” gets to the heart of what so many Americans find disconcerting about the former Secretary of State and her husband. The opportunism, the sleazy connections (e.g. Frank Giustra, Sant Chatwal, Marc Rich, etc.), the millions in paid speeches from Wall Street firms and foreign companies, the endless catalog of scandals (the majority — but not all — of which are baseless), the big campaign contributions from bankers and billionaires and media moguls, and so on. Clinton has a serious image problem: people view her as the ultimate politician who will lie and cheat her way into power (there’s a reason why people believe Frank and Claire Underwood were inspired by the Clintons).
Of course, a great deal of this is obviously a result of right-wing smears and conspiracy theories that have been propagated since the first day the Clinton’s entered the political spotlight. Anyone who denies that a right-wing noise machine has been making shit up about the Clinton’s and manufacturing scandals since the 1990s is simply deluding themselves. But the same goes for anyone who argues that the Clinton’s are merely victims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” who have never done anything questionable or ethically dubious in their entire careers — like the folks at Blue Nation Review, a website that was purchased by a Hillary Super PAC run by David Brock in December and has since become a propaganda wing for the Clinton campaign.
Once you dig through the right-wing garbage heap — e.g. Vince Foster, Whitewater, Benghazi — there is still ample reason to distrust Hillary Clinton. On a purely political level, it’s hard to take anything Clinton says during a campaign as genuine; she has altered her positions time and again for political benefit, and there is no reason to think this will change. For most Bernie Sanders supporters, this seems to be the major turnoff. Compared to Sanders, who has remained committed to progressive principles throughout his career, Clinton is a political chameleon.
But even if you ignore the political opportunism and inconsistency, there are very real ethical concerns that must be considered. And it goes way beyond Clinton getting big contributions from Wall Street executives or billionaires to fund her campaigns (after all, she is not unique in this respect: most D.C. politicians are equally dependent on wealthy donors in the current system).
For the Clintons, politics is a family business, and it seems to be as much about accumulating wealth as it is garnering power. Hillary has often questioned why she has received so much flak for something like paid speeches — which many other former public officials give as well (read: former public officials) — but there is quite simply no power couple even remotely comparable to the Clintons and the political/business/philanthropic apparatus that they have created over the past twenty years. And if the Clinton’s were Republicans, there is no doubt that partisan Democrats would be more than a little suspicious.

A large share of Bill Clinton’s post-presidency speaking gigs were for special interests that benefited greatly from his administrations policies (e.g. Wall Street and deregulation), or special interests that stood to benefit from Hillary’s current or future political power. Consider one disquieting fact: out of the 13 speeches that Bill Clinton has been paid over $500,000 for during his speaking career, eleven of them came a decade after he left office, while Hillary was secretary of ctate — and all of these were sponsored by foreign companies, NGO’s, or governments. Hillary has obviously earned big paydays for speeches as well, once again from interests who stand to benefit from being on the good side of a future president, like Goldman Sachs. Finally, the Clinton Foundation itself has received millions in donations from individuals, corporations, and governments that have had something to gain — whether Canada’s mining billionaire Frank Giustra or the oil corporation Chevron or the autocratic regime of Saudi Arabia, which donated some 10 million to the Foundation and then saw a boost in arms sales approved by Clinton’s State Department.
None of this is proof of corruption, of course; but it does raise real concerns, and it certainly reveals an arrogance on the part of the Clintons. After being accused of plotting the murder a political adviser and friend who committed suicide (Vince Foster), did Hillary and Bill really think that giving speeches to Goldman Sachs or cozying up to a billionaire like Frank Giustra would go unnoticed? Perhaps Clinton expected her Republican opponent to be even more tainted by big money than herself (like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker)? If this is the case, Donald Trump is the worst opponent Clinton could have hoped for.

On Friday, after taking well-deserved heat for bringing up the Vince Foster conspiracy theory (which is probably the craziest of them all), Trump said that he may just stick to some of Bernie Sanders’ criticisms of Clinton, because the media says his own are “not nice” (of course, it’s not that his talking points are mean, it’s that they’re batshit crazy). “He’s given me a lot of my best lines. I mean, he has given me such great lines on her,” said the billionaire on Sanders. If this is Donald’s strategy — to stick to the substantive criticisms and refrain from conspiracy theories and personal attacks — team Clinton should be worried.
Of course, Clintonites will undoubtedly blame Sanders for putting things into Donald’s head if he continues to climb in the polls and starts asking Clinton to release her Goldman Sachs speeches; but the only people who deserve blame are Hillary and Bill. As Sanders recently said in an interview with The Young Turk’s Cenk Uygur: “Many of my supporters think I have not been hard enough on [Clinton]…And believe me, Trump will be coming from a very different direction. They have 50 people doing opposition research, and everybody knows what’s out there. So to say that we have been too hard — scorched earth — is totally absurd.”
The Clinton empire, an audacious fusion of politics, business, and philanthropy, has always presented a risk when it comes to presidential politics — and with the current populist ethos in the air, it has become increasingly hazardous. While I suspect Clinton will ultimately defeat Trump — his inflammatory rhetoric and buffoonish ignorance is too repellent, and it’s her election to lose — after 2016, voters may not be as forgiving.

Conor Lynch is a writer and journalist living in New York City. His work has appeared on Salon, AlterNet, Counterpunch and openDemocracy.

[/FONT]

peacenik · Aug 27, 2016

gotta hand it to him - Trump does promote some business:

gb9 · Aug 27, 2016

wonder what the reaction would be if someone made a sign like this about Hillary????/

peacenik · Aug 27, 2016

She has not done anything to deserve the scorn Trump has gotten. Instead he continues to demonstrate hate and cynicism and has not spoken a word of truth. Yet, he continues to project his real self unto others so that nobody is fooled but himself:

RickyZ · Aug 27, 2016

New revelations show a nation about to implode

peacenik · Aug 27, 2016

RickyZ said:

People said that in the 1930s and again in the 1960s. But we survived the mess created by Republicans. We will do the same today no matter how hard they try to destroy this great Nation.

JosephsDreams · Aug 27, 2016

[h=1]Navy Seal Confronts Hillary Clinton – ‘You Are An Ignorant Liar’[/h]

LIKE THIS ARTICLE? →
Share
Tweet
Email

AUTHOR MRC Editor
JANUARY 5, 2016 12:19PM PST

The One Video Hillary Didn't Want Released Before November 8th, 2016
Health Sciences Institute

Pictures That Hillary Clinton Wishes Would Go Away!
Detonate.com

New revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

popeye

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

FlowersnJesus

Guest

Senior Member

FlowersnJesus

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member