Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[russ1945]

[h=2]AP Reporter: Hillary Clinton Undermining VA’s Problems Will Trail Her Through Election Day[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: Daniel Bassali
November 12, 2015 12:35 am

AP reporter Julie Pace on Wednesday night predicted Hillary Clinton’s comment that problems with the VA are overblown will continue to follow the candidate as she navigates through the Democratic primary and into the general election, should she get the nomination.
“The Hillary Clinton comment, sometimes when you do this job you hear a candidate say something and you just know that that is something that is going to trail her through Election Day next year if she is the eventual Democratic nominee,” Pace said on Special Report with Bret Baier.
Clinton drew criticism from Republicans and veterans’ groups for dismissing scandals plaguing the VA under the Obama administration. When she was asked how she would fix the healthcare system set up to help the nation’s veterans, the Democratic frontrunner blamed Republicans for using the VA for political gain.
“It’s not been as widespread as it has been made out to be,” Clinton said on The Rachel Maddow Show just over two weeks ago. “Now nobody would believe that from the coverage you see, and the constant berating of the VA that comes from the Republicans, in part in pursuit of this ideological agenda that they have. They try to create a downward spiral, don’t fund it to the extent that it needs to be funded, because they want it to fail, so then we can argue for privatization.”
Just days earlier, CNN reported major delays within the VA system as appointment times were not getting any better. In 2014, the VA’s inspector general found inappropriate practices were systemic in all of the department’s facilitates.
“You look at the numbers, and I think is really hard to argue that this isn’t a systemic widespread problem,” Pace said.
Veterans groups immediately responded to Clinton’s remarks.
“Hillary Clinton has shown that just like the Obama administration, of which she was a part, she will minimize the deep-rooted problems within the Department of Veterans Affairs and engage in partisan attacks against those who propose real and fundamental reform,” Pete Hegseth of Concerned Veterans for America said in a statement.
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer suggested Clinton, and Democrats in general, wanted to undermine the faults at the VA in order to prevent the privatization of the department.
“A Democrat will never consider [vouchers] because it gives a person choice,” Krauthammer said.

 

[russ1945]

DC MEDIA BURIES 7 NEW SCANDALS DURING HILLARY CLINTON’S BEST! WEEK! EVER!

1456​

22​

381​

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File

by JOHN NOLTE12 Nov 2015532
Before we get to the list, let me explain a little bit how our corrupt DC Media works. Has the DC Media “covered” some of the new Hillary scandals listed below? Sure. The DC Media “covers” pretty much everything. In the end, though, it is meaningless unless what is covered becomes part of a larger narrative. Let me give you an example.
CNN is “covering” Clinton’s bizarre story about attempting to join the Marines some 40 years ago. According to her, because she’s a woman, she was turned out at the door by a recruiter. I’m not going to get in the weeds of why Clinton’s story doesn’t pass the smell test, but it doesn’t. So CNN *is* covering the story but CNN is not covering it with anywhere near the intensity and damaging incredulity that was used in their racially-motivated attempt to destroy Ben Carson last week.
For four entire days, Maeve Reston’s shoddy, dishonest reporting on Carson’s background led every CNN hour and half-hour. The Carson hit-job drove almost all of CNN’s programming for days. Hillary’s tale is thus far been buried at the bottom of the CNN hour and approached as a kind of joke; a silly season story.
The difference is all the difference, which is why CNN should not be allowed to host the next GOP presidential debate. There is just no question that the network is on a mission to, one-by-one, disqualify our candidates while protecting Hillary.
This of course is true for the rest of the DC Media. The week after the Benghazi Select Committee revealed documents proving Hillary Clinton lied to the American people and the Benghazi families about a YouTube video being responsible for the Benghazi terror attack, to bury that bombshell, the DC Media coordinate a Narrative and in unison screamed that Hillary had The Best Week Ever!
Because Hillary will almost certainly be the Democrat nominee, the corrupt DC Media has shifted into “Hillary can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right” gear, which these hacks will remain in until November of next year.
How do we know this? Well, this was the gear the media used to put terrorist Bill Ayers’ pal over the finish line in 2008. It was the gear the media used to re-elect The Liar They Knew Was Lying in 2012.
We also know this because the DC Media have extended Hillary’s Best Week Ever into Hillary’s Best Month Ever, despite 7 new revelations that this very same media would use to destroy a Republican.

1. Hillary’s Claim She Tried to Join the Marines

As mentioned above, when compared to how the DC Media covered the Carson story, it’s like comparing an Uzi to a banana.

1. Hillary Signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)

As has been the case for the last 8 years, this is another bombshell our useless DC mediadid not uncover. Apparently, they were too busy celebrating The Best Week Ever.
It was the Washington Free Beacon that dug up this hugely important document that proves Clinton was “responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that ‘negligent handling’ of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.”
This is a huge deal. To protect Hillary from this damning revelation, the DC Media is outright ignoring it. The document not only blows apart Clinton’s absurd statements about it not being her fault that classified data ran through her secret server, it makes her legally responsible for it.

1. Hillary Downplays The VA Scandal

If a Republican had said something similarly cold-hearted and factually untrue, the DC Media would have spent days hounding, badgering, and bullying him or her into submission. The coverage would have been relentless and damaging. The only escape hatch offered would have been a full retraction.
Look at how this same media bludgeoned Carly Fiorina as a liar when she told the truth about the Planned Parenthood video.
But because Democrats have put all of their eggs in the Hillary basket, the DC Media chose to pretend Hillary’s VA comments never happened.
It is not an accident that the DC Media began its coordinated cover-up campaign the day after Joe Biden announced he would not run for president. She is all the Democrats got, and therefore she cannot, under any circumstance, be politically damaged.

1. Hillary Laughs at Joke About Strangling Carly Fiorina

After a questioner at a Trump event referred to Barack Obama as a Muslim, the DC Media went on a 5 day tear blasting the billionaire businessman for not correcting the man. This event drove the news-cycle. The video was repeated every half hour.
Hillary laughed along…
With a man…
Who said he wanted…
To strangle a woman.
All I’ve seen is a few mentions of this story, most them asking if there’s a double standard in the media. You can’t make this stuff up.

1. F.B.I. Expands Investigation Into Hillary’s Emails

How big of a garbage fire is the DC Media? We’re constantly told the F.B.I. is “not investigating Hillary Clinton.”
That’s right, you lying hacks, the F.B.I. is simply investigating Clinton’s “behavior.”
That obscenely, dishonest distinction is true for everyone from Richard Nixon to Charles Manson. And I don’t remember Chris Christie enjoying that parsing during Bridgegate.
Anyway, unless you watch Fox News or look at New Media, you would not know that this week the F.B.I. has expanded its probe into Hillary’s “behavior.”

The FBI has expanded its probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails, with agents exploring whether multiple statements violate a federal false statements statute, according to intelligence sources familiar with the ongoing case.
Fox News is told agents are looking at U.S. Code 18, Section 1001, which pertains to “materially false” statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party. Violations also include pressuring a third party to conspire in a cover-up. Each felony violation is subject to five years in prison.
This phase represents an expansion of the FBI probe, which is also exploring potential violations of an Espionage Act provision relating to “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information.
​

Compare the media’s coverage of every twist and turn of Bridgegate and Plamegate to their complete and utter disinterest in nothing less than an F.B.I. probe into a former-Secretary of State and certain Democrat presidential nominee’s growing F.B.I. troubles.
Have I mentioned yet just how good Democrats have it?

1. Hillary Declares Republicans Her ‘Enemies’

Donald Trump used the term “silent majority” and CNN spent two days wondering aloud if it was racist.
Hillary declares her fellow Americans “enemies” and crickets.

1. Teneo

Oh, you don’t know what Teneo is, but you do know that Godtard Ben Carson has a biblical view of the Pyramids?
Oh, you don’t know what Teneo is, but you do know that Godtard Ben Carson has a drawing of himself with Jesus?
Again, in a dutiful act of CYA, the DC Media gets on record covering this scandal but coordinates with one another to ensure the story never really gets out, and certainly never becomes a Narrative.
I watch the media like a hawk. If Hugh Hewitt had not mentioned this on “Meet the Press, I would have missed it completely.
***
The DC Media is a pure protection racket, a group of extreme leftists who pose as journalists to further a mission designed to grow the size and power of the Central Government, and to protect those like Hillary Clinton who share in that cause.
Tell me how else you explain everything documented above.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Hillary Clinton Boards Private Jet After Receiving Endorsement From Environmentalist Group[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: Aaron Kliegman
November 12, 2015 12:41 pm

American Rising PAC released a video Thursday showing Hillary Clinton boarding a private jet in Lebanon, New Hampshire for a short trip to New York one day after the Democratic presidential candidate received an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters, a left-wing environmentalist group.
The endorsement caused backlash among some on the environmental left and from Bernie Sanders’ campaign who think that he has a better track record on environmental issues.
The Learjet 60 Clinton boarded consumes 203 gallons of fuel per hour and has an hourly carbon footprint of 4,283 pounds, according to the Daily Mail.
America Rising describes how the Clinton campaign pledged to go “carbon neutral” in July 2014, but a CNN report from last month showed that this objective, which specifically included travel, was never achieved yet “is still an important goal.”
Mrs. Clinton has switched her official position on multiple environmental and conservation issues over the past few years. In 2011, then-Secretary of State Clinton supported “smart, sustainable” drilling but now officially opposes doing so in the Arctic.
Regarding the Keystone XL pipeline, she originally took a neutral stance and was involved in discussions with Canada over constructing the pipeline, but now is firmly against the project altogether.
On the issue of coal, back in 2008 when Clinton was campaigning against Barack Obama, she said:

“I think we have got to take a hard look at clean coal. I have advocated carbon sequestration, I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently…. The political pressure [to use coal] will remain intense, and I think you have got to admit that coal — of which we have a great and abundant supply in America — is not going away.”
​

While speaking to the League of Conservation Voters this week, however, she made comments to the contrary:

Jeff Bechdel, the communications director for America Rising PAC, issued the following statement on Mrs. Clinton boarding the private jet:

“Hillary Clinton’s hypocritical campaign has hit a new low. Long gone are the days of the Scooby van and her campaign bragging about cost cutting. Clinton is so dependent on her out of touch lifestyle that she can’t quit her private jet addiction even just a day after touting the endorsement of a fringe green energy group.”
​

Securing the group’s endorsement is significant for Mrs. Clinton, who is vying with Bernie Sanders for support of environmentalists, who constitute an influential part of her party’s base, for the Democratic Party nomination.

 

[russ1945]

Why aren’t Hillary Clinton’s exaggerations of her life story bigger news?

Resize Text​

Print Article​

Comments 1390
​

By Chris Cillizza November 12 at 1:23 PM

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton listens as Vietnam War veteran Bob Hannan speaks during a veterans round table discussion with the Truman National Security Project at the VFW Hall in Derry, N.H., on Nov. 10. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Hillary Clinton tells a story of how she tried to join the Marines in 1975 but was rejected because she was too old. The problem? The story may not be totally true.
As The Post's Fact Checker illustrates in a column dedicated to Clinton's Marine claim Thursday, there's little reason to believe that she -- already a very prominent person -- would suddenly attempt to join the military.
The Fact Checker doesn't say Clinton is lying -- and notes that several of her friends have, in the past, vaguely corroborated Clinton's recounting of her interest in the Marines. But it awards Clinton Two Pinnocchios for the claim, meaning: "Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people."
This isn't the first time that Clinton might have been caught exaggerating the details of her past life. In a speech in Iraq in 2008, Clinton recounted landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base," she said.
Videos unearthed of Clinton's arrival showed a very different story -- a calm scene without any obvious danger. Clinton recanted a week after giving the speech, saying that she had misspoken. But she was still whacked for exaggeration by then-candidate Barack Obama's campaign -- an Obama spokesman at the time cited "a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policy-making" -- and given a "pants on fire" rating for the claim by the fact-checking service PolitiFact.
Play Video2:22

Hillary Clinton in Bosnia







In a 2008 speech in Iraq, Hillary Clinton said she landed in Bosnia under heavy fire. But video of the landing shows otherwise. (AP)

Compare Clinton's exaggerations -- both the one we are sure of (Bosnia) and the one where recollections are hazy (Marines) -- to the spate of recent stories about GOP front-runner Ben Carson and his recounting of his past. It seems, at a minimum, that Carson misremembered/exaggerated the idea that he met with Gen. William Westmoreland and/or was offered a "full scholarship" to attend West Point. And his stories of a violent youth highlighted by a terrible temper, while not proven entirely untrue, have had some doubt cast on them by reporting done by CNN in which his childhood acquaintances seemed to remember things differently.
On their face, the extent of the exaggerations at issue seem very similar. And yet, Republicans note, Carson is being cast by the media as a fraud while Clinton is being given a pass. Liberal bias, they scream.

​

[WATCH: Why Ben Carson's pyramid comment won't hurt him]
Maybe. But I think it's less bias for political reasons and more bias for new news stories.
Carson is a totally new political commodity. He had never run for anything before this race. His rise to the top of the field has been heavily reliant on his personal story -- going from abject poverty in Detroit to become one of the world's most renowned brain surgeons. The Ben Carson Story is not one that most people are already familiar with. What's happening now is that getting-to-know-you moment with voters. There's a freshness tied to the Carson story, then -- a freshness that, when linked to his status as the Republican front-runner, makes the vetting of his story have a clear news peg.
Clinton, on the other hand, is, well, not new to the political scene. And her story isn't either. While not everyone is familiar with all of the particulars of the Bosnia incident or her applying for the Marines (or not), there is some sense that she is a known commodity for voters. Hence, no news peg. And less coverage. (Although it's worth noting that the reason I am writing this post at all is because of a fact check by my news organization of a claim made by Clinton on the campaign trail.)
I also think there's a deeper debate in here about politicians -- who they are and what we require of them.
First, who they are. They are human. Like us. That's obvious, sort of, but very important to remember in this context. All of us -- me included -- like to tell the story of our life in ways that make us look as good/noble/selfless/cool as possible. Small exaggerations can turn into big ones without you even realizing it. Sometimes the story you tell of your life is so convincing -- and close enough to what really happened -- that once you repeat it enough times, you aren't so sure it's not entirely, perfectly accurate.
Politicians are pleasers in an industry that loves to please. They want people to both admire them and relate to them -- and the way to do that, usually, is by finding some sort of shared experience. In doing that, details can get obscured or elided. A story a pol tells which is close to the truth if not the perfect truth, might get such a great response that they just keep telling it. And each time, the retelling the story drifts a little further from the original episode. It happens.

​

Now to what we expect from politicians. We expect them to not give in to that very human tendency to tell the story in a way that makes them look just a little bit better or braver. And we expect them to have absolutely perfect recall of everything they have ever said or done in their lives -- a trait that, speaking for myself, I lack. Ask yourself this: Do you remember things you said 20 years ago? And, even if you do, could you recount the specifics of those conversations -- what was said, where it was said, who all was in the room, etc.? I think for most of us, that would be a stretch.
That is not to excuse politicians whose little white lies are more than, well, little white lies. In Clinton's case, it seems unlikely to me that she would simply misremember whether or not she was being fired on when she landed in Bosnia. In Carson's, I can see how a conversation from decades ago might be misinterpreted, although conflating a "you should apply here" to "here is a full scholarship" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. (I had a very nice conversation with a Stanford alum when I applied there; I did not take that very nice conversation as proof that the rejection letter the university sent me should be ignored.)
If nothing new comes out about irregularities in the way Carson has painted his past, my guess is this is a blip on the radar of his campaign -- nothing more. Ditto Clinton; she weathered the Bosnia revelation during the 2008 campaign and seems likely to me to have little trouble handling this Marines story, too.
The broader point here is how our expectations for politicians work -- and whether those expectations are realistic or not. I think, in the main, they aren't.
Clinton rallies support on the campaign trail

View Photos


Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigns in key states in her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president.

 

[russ1945]

That whole Bosnia thing defines Hillary. What was she thinking?

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Hillary 2.0[/h]Thomas Sowell | Oct 27, 2015

• Share on Facebook362
• 425 SHARES

Many people may share Senator Bernie Sanders' complaint that he was tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton's e-mails. But the controversy is about issues far bigger than e-mails.
One issue is the utter disaster created by the Obama administration's foreign policy in Libya, carried out by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
An even bigger issue is whether high officials of government can ignore the law and refuse to produce evidence when it is subpoenaed. If they can, then the whole separation of powers -- the checks and balances in the Constitution -- gives way to arbitrary government by corrupt officials who are accountable to no one.
This is not the first time Hillary Clinton has defied the law to cover up what she had done. When Bill Clinton was president, back in the 1990s, both he and Hillary developed the strategy of responding to charges of illegal actions on their part by stalling and stonewalling when either courts or Congress tried to get them to produce documents related to these charges.
Hillary claimed then, as now, that key documents had disappeared. Her more recent claim that many of her e-mails had been deleted was just Hillary 2.0. Only after three years of stalling and stonewalling on her part has the fact finally come out this year that those e-mails could be recovered, and now have been.

By this time, however, Hillary and her supporters used the same tactics that both Clintons used back in the 1990s -- namely, saying that this was old news, stuff that had already been investigated too long, that it was time to "move on."
That was Hillary 1.0. More recently Hillary 2.0 said, melodramatically, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
One of the things that the former Secretary of State was now trying to cover up was the utter disaster of the Obama administration's foreign policy that she carried out in Libya.
Having intervened in Libya to help overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi, who was no threat to America's interests in the Middle East, the Obama administration was confronted with the fact that Qaddafi's ouster simply threw the country into such chaos that Islamic terrorists were now able to operate freely in Libya.
Just how freely was shown in September 2012, when terrorists stormed the compound in Benghazi where the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was staying. They murdered him and three other Americans who tried to defend him.
Moreover, the terrorists did not even have to go into hiding afterwards, and at least one of them was interviewed by journalists. That's how chaotic Libya had become.




Meanwhile, there was an American presidential election campaign in 2012, and Barack Obama was presenting himself to the voters as someone who had defeated Al Qaeda and suppressed the terrorist threat in the Middle East.
Obviously the truth about this attack could have totally undermined the image that Obama was trying to project during the election campaign, and perhaps cost him the White House. So a lie was concocted instead.
The lie was that the attack was not by terrorists -- who supposedly had been suppressed by Obama -- but was a spontaneous protest demonstration against an American video insulting Islam, and that protest just got out of control.
Now that Hillary Clinton's e-mails have finally been recovered and revealed, after three years of stalling and stonewalling, they showed explicitly that she knew from the outset that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and others was not a result of some video but was a coordinated terrorist operation.
Nevertheless, Hillary 2.0, along with President Obama and national security advisor Susan Rice, told the world in 2012 that the deaths in Benghazi were due to the video, not a terrorist organization that was now operating freely in Libya, thanks to the policy that got rid of the Qaddafi government.

Yet that key fact was treated by the media as old news, and what was exciting now was how well Hillary 2.0 outperformed the Congressional committee on television. If the corruption and undermining of the American system of Constitutional government eventually costs us our freedom, will the media say, "What difference does it make now?"

 

[Acebb]

[h=1]Clinton email companies rebuff Senate investigators[/h]
Platte River Networks, the Denver-based tech company that housed Clinton's server after she left the State Department in 2013, has declined requests by the Senate Homeland Committee to interview five employees about the security of the system, according to correspondence reviewed by POLITICO.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/stonewall-215772#ixzz3rOaakJF0

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Clinton’s debate performance leaves trail of fodder for political adversaries[/h]

Resize Text​

Print Article​

Comments 759
​

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband former US President Bill Clinton at the Story County Democratic Picnic in Aimes, Iowa. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
By Abby Phillip and David Weigel November 15 at 10:18 PM
It was not a tricky question, but Hillary Rodham Clinton found a way to make it so. Toward the end of the latest Democratic presidential debate over the weekend, she was asked about the rash of campus protests and whether she would encourage more of them. Clinton, who had plenty of stories of her work with activists, decided to go with biography.
“I come from the ’60s, a long time ago,” she told moderator John Dickerson. “There was a lot of activism on campus.”
Republicans spotted an opportunity. A spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) demonstrated just how easily a 44-year-old *Cuban American could outflank a 68-year-old baby boomer.
“Debate recap,” tweeted Rubio spokesman Alex Conant. “Clinton: ‘I come from the 60s, a long time ago.’ Marco: ‘This election is about the future.’ ”
It was one of a series of potential missteps by Clinton that could become fodder for damaging attacks against her, both in the primary season and the general election.
Play Video2:42

[h=3]4 fiery exchanges from the Democratic debate[/h]





Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Former governor Martin O'Malley (Md.) sparred over how to handle the Islamic State, what the minimum wage should be and more. CBS broadcast the debate out of Des Moines, Iowa. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

Clinton had delivered an otherwise strong debate performance, navigating a first hour almost entirely dedicated to foreign policy. But at key moments, she appeared to step on her own momentum.
First, she and other Democrats on the stage refused to say the words “radical Islam,” another moment immediately seized upon by Republicans. Then she invoked the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defend herself against a critique of her alleged cozy relationship with Wall Street from Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) — and was roundly criticized on Twitter.
Finally, as the debate came to a close, Clinton delivered the made-for-TV sound bite about the ’60s, pegging herself as the opposite of the fresh face that many voters are looking for.
The missteps are emblematic of a concern that has dogged Clinton’s candidacy. Several times, she has come up with a sharp line to close the door on a political problem, only to get stuck with splinters.
If October’s Democratic debate represented Clinton’s escape from a summer of scandal and declining poll numbers, Saturday’s represented the downside of front-runner status. It was no longer good enough for Clinton to “win” an exchange. A maladroit answer could be mined for gaffes by Republicans who expect to see Clinton on the ballot in November 2016.

CONTENT FROM RYDERLeave supply chain management to the expertsOutsourcing supply chain roles requires active business management and engagement.[COLOR=#747474 !important]By Ryder​

​

Even the sleepy timing of the debate led Republicans to say that Democrats were trying to protect a candidate who sometimes wilts in the spotlight. Nearly 7 million fewer people tuned in to the broadcast compared with the October debate on CNN.
[Democrats debate Islamic State and Wall Street, but Clinton is the focus]

By Sunday morning, conservative Web sites had assembled multiple competing videos of the 1960s remark, their only disagreement coming over whether to add a clip from “Back to the Future” or a lava lamp. “I can guarantee that this will appear in some ad at some point,” said pollster Frank Luntz. “Nobody, Republican or Democrat, wants to vote for a candidate from the 1960s when we’re well into the 21st century.”
Opponents jumped on the other moments, too. On ABC News’s “This Week,” Rubio said that by refusing to say the words “radical Islam,” Democrats are “saying we weren’t at war with the Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party but weren’t violent themselves.”
The 9/11 comment came in response to Sanders’s attacks on her willingness to accept Wall Street donations. Clinton noted that the terrorist attacks in Lower Manhattan came nine months into her tenure as junior senator from New York.
“Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is,” Clinton said, with a passion that almost suggested that the question was out of line. “I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild.”
“That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country,” she added.
The answer did not rebut Sanders’s point, that Clinton might be beholden to special interests because she has accepted millions from the financial industry. On Twitter and Facebook, the moment became the most-talked-about exchange of the debate — and not to her benefit.
Clinton “vehemently offers support for Wall Street as post-911 recovery effort. Does that fly?” former Obama adviser David Axelrod asked on Twitter.

​

It didn’t help that during the event, a biting follow-up question came from social media. “I’ve never seen a candidate invoke 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations until now,” wrote Andy Grewal, a law professor at the University of Iowa.
In other words, explained CBS moderator Nancy Cordes: “What does that have to do with taking big donations?”
For a moment, Clinton paused, seemingly stunned by the implication that she had politicized the 2001 terrorist attacks. Then, she apologized.
“Well, I’m sorry that whoever tweeted that had that impression,” Clinton said.
Saturday’s gaffes were reminiscent of one from January 2013, when Clinton first testified before Congress on the 2011 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) kept asking her why the State Department had tied the violence to “spontaneous” protests rather than labeling it terrorism. Clinton, exasperated, famously responded: “What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?” Her critics cited it as evidence that she couldn’t have cared less how four Americans died.
She tried something similar last year. Challenged by ABC News’s Diane Sawyer on her post-administration speaking fees, Clinton said that her family “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” and “struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education.”
Financial records backed that up, but the line clunked so badly that the conservative group American Crossroads ended up showing it to focus groups of women in swing states.
Now, Republicans believe they have a new round of ammunition. Party Chairman Reince Priebus called Clinton’s remarks on 9/11 a “new low” and a “bizarre attempt to deflect attention from her ties to her wealthy donors.”
The answer was not as bite-sized or as easily weaponized as the “1960s” comment. But it made for uncomfortable headlines and evoked two of the weaknesses that Republicans like to cite to pit Democrats against their front-runner. Foreign policy was as much of a sticking point as financial donations. Thirteen years earlier, she had voted for the authority to invade Iraq from “the perspective of a senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of [2001’s] terrible attacks on our nation.”

​

Clinton did not revisit her Wall Street remarks in an address to central Iowa Democrats on Sunday, where she was accompanied by former president Bill Clinton. And although former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley lamented her tendency to commit gaffes — “does she have to keep giving them so much ammunition?” — Democrats in Iowa who watched the Saturday debate said they were unfazed by the 9/11 flap.
“I wasn’t bothered by it. I didn’t see it as a gaffe,” said Sue Seedorff-Keninger, 62, who hasn’t decided which candidate she will caucus with. “I saw it as an explanation for why she received money from them.”
[In Iowa, Democrats not upset by Clinton’s comments about Sept. 11, 2001]
Clinton’s campaign communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, dismissed the comment and fallout from it as remote to voters.
“I don’t think this is something that caucus-goers in Iowa or voters are going to care about,” Palmieri told reporters. “I think what they are really going to care about is that she’s focused on raising incomes for the middle class” and other pocketbook issues.
After the debate, the Sanders team appeared to make a conscious decision to lay off Clinton on the 9/11 remark. One of his advisers, Tad Devine, told reporters that he would leave it to others to assess the comments.
“Then-Sen. Clinton did a great job representing her state at a time of terrible tragedy in New York on 9/11, and we’re not joining in the characterization of her comments,” Devine said, instead seeking to focus on the “big substantive differences” between the two on how they would regulate Wall Street.
That’s where author and liberal firebrand Cornel West took the conversation. Filling in for Sanders at the same event where Clinton and O’Malley appeared Sunday, West landed a sharp dig at “my dear sister Hillary Clinton.”
“I took Wall Street money but it didn’t affect me?” he said, paraphrasing Clinton’s remarks at the debate.
“I say, I was born at night but not last night.”


[/COLOR]

 

[Acebb]

She is a complete idiot and her whole campaign is pathetic.

NYT ed board blasts Clinton's Wall Street-9/11 comments

"Predictably, Twitter exploded with demands to know what campaign donations from big banks had to do with New York’s recovery from 9/11. Answer: little to nothing. "

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]String of Felons Worked With Nonprofit Cofounded by Bill Clinton[/h]Numerous board members, trustees of Clinton charity accused of illegal schemes
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Rajat Gupta, right, and his lawyer / AP​

BY: Alana Goodman
November 16, 2015 5:00 am

Numerous former board members and trustees of a charity group cofounded by Bill Clinton have been accused of or convicted of insider trading, campaign finance violations, and other illegal schemes.
The American India Foundation is one of several nonprofit groups in Bill Clinton’s charitable orbit, although it has received less attention than the Clinton Foundation and its spin-offs.
The group was founded in 2001 “at the initiative of President Bill Clinton following a request from Prime Minister Vajpayee” in order to help with the recovery efforts after the Gujarat earthquake. It is currently run by CEO Ravi Kumar.
AIF was co-founded by Clinton and former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta in 2001. Clinton continues to serve as honorary chairman of the council of trustees, according to the website.
Gupta, a Clinton donor, was convicted of passing illegal trading tips to another former AIF trustee—Raj Rajarantam—in the highly-publicized 2011 case that took down the Galleon hedge fund. Gupta is currently serving out a two-year prison term and was last listed as co-chairman of the AIF board in 2010.
Gupta’s legal team highlighted his work with AIF and Bill Clinton during his sentencing.
“Rajat worked with former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Victor Menezes, former Senior Vice Chair of Citigroup, to found the American India Foundation (AIF),” said his attorneys in a sentencing memo. “Under their leadership, within its first year AIF raised millions of dollars to support earthquake relief efforts.”
However, Gupta is just one of many current or former members of AIF leadership who have been embroiled in headline-grabbing legal controversies over the years.
Rajarantam, the former head of Galleon and also an early member of AIF leadership, was sentenced to 11 years in prison—the longest sentence ever handed down in an insider trading case—in 2011 for allegedly using illegal stock tips to amass a $63 million fortune.
Former AIF trustee and hotelier Sant Chatwal, pled guilty in 2014 to a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. He was accused of illegally funneling $180,000 through straw donors to political candidates, including Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Federal investigators reportedly recorded Chatwal talking to an informant about using contributions to influence politicians.
“Without that nobody will even talk to you. When they are in need of money…the money you give then they are always for you,” he said. “That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system. … What, what else is there? That’s the only thing.”
The Hampshire Hotels president was sentenced to three years probation and ordered to pay a $500,000 fine, according to his attorney. He is still listed as a New York trustee on the AIF website.
Chatwal’s son, Manhattan socialite Vikram Chatwal, has also been an AIF trustee. He was charged with felony drug trafficking in 2013 after police say he tried to board a plane carrying heroin, cocaine and illegal prescription pills. The charges were dismissed after he completed a yearlong rehab program.
Natel Engineering, a company owned by former AIF trustee Sudesh Arora, pleaded guilty to contract fraud in 1993. The company was ordered to pay a $1 million fine for neglecting to test computer parts in military equipment it sold to the U.S. military.
InfoUSA founder Vinod Gupta, a former early AIF board member, was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with misappropriating company funds in 2010. According to a lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders in 2006, Gupta spent company money on private flights for the Clintons. Bill Clinton also reportedly earned over $2 million working as a consultant for Gupta’s company.
Gupta stepped down from InfoUSA and agreed to pay a $7.4 million settlement in 2010.
Tech entrepreneur Naveen Jain, a former AIF trustee, was found to have violated insider trading laws in a civil suit in 2003 and ousted as CEO of InfoSpace.
A current AIF trustee, CEO of Fairfax Financial Holdings Prem Watsa, is reportedly under a civil investigation in Canada for insider trading, along with others at the company. Fairfax said it is cooperating with the probe and denied any wrongdoing.
The foundation has also honored Ramalinga Raju, the head of the now-defunct Satyam Computer Services, a company that has been dubbed “India’s Enron.” Raju was sentenced to seven years in prison in April after he was convicted of carrying out one of the largest corporate frauds in India’s history. His sentence was suspended in May pending appeal.
AIF did not respond to an emailed request for comment. A spokesperson for Bill Clinton was reached and did not comment.
Attorneys for Vikram Chatwal, Arora, and Rajaratnam could not be reached. Sant Chatwal’s attorney confirmed the details of his sentencing; the others did not return requests for comment.
AIF brought in $6.9 million in 2013, and spent just over $7 million, according to tax records. It currently has a two out of four star rating from Charity Navigator.
The charity supports education initiatives, anti-poverty programs, and disaster relief efforts in India and says it has “chang[ed] the lives of more than 2.3 million of India’s less fortunate.”
Through its high-profile fundraising events, AIF has provided a networking platform for business leaders, Hollywood stars, and political figures.
Earlier this month, the group honored Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden, a former Clinton aide, at a fundraising gala in Washington, D.C.

 

[russ1945]

I have mentioned it on here before but there are many people looking into the Clinton Foundation and for all the right reasons. The article above is proof positive that the Foundation is questionable to say the least. It isn't hard to connect those dots and they should not be ignored. The Clintons operate as though they have some kind of immunity and that is because they get away with most everything. I think it will come to an end if the dots on the Clintin Foundation are tied into Hillary's tenure as Sec of State. Yes you are innocent until proven guilty but if the above article does not arouse any suspicion then something is wrong.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Judicial Watch: Email Reveals Top Aide Huma Abedin Warning State Department Staffer That Hillary Clinton Is “Often Confused”[/h]NOVEMBER 16, 2015
EmailPrintText Size
4.1K




(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released more than 35 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin revealing that Abedin advised Clinton aide and frequent companion Monica Hanley that it was “very important” to go over phone calls with Clinton because the former Secretary of State was “often confused.” The emails, from Abedin’s “Huma@clintonemail.com” address, also reveal repeated security breaches, with the Secretary’s schedule and movements being sent and received through Abedin’s non-governmental and unsecured Clinton server account. The emails document requests for special State Department treatment for a Clinton Foundation associate and Abedin’s mother, a controversial Islamist leader.
The Abedin email material contains a January 26, 2013, email exchange with Clinton aide Monica Hanley regarding Clinton’s schedule in which Abedin says Clinton is “often confused:”

• Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows singh is at 8? [India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]
• Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her
• Abedin: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.

The newly released Abedin emails included a lengthy exchange giving precise details of the Clinton schedule on the Secretary’s final full day in office, Wednesday, January 31, 2013. The email from Lona J. Valmoro, former Special Assistant to Secretary of State Clinton, to Abedin, other top State Department staff, and Clinton associates, reveals exact times (including driving times) and locations of all appointments throughout the day:

8:25 am DEPART Private Residence
En route to State Department
[drive time: 10 minutes]

***​

1:40 pm DEPART State Department
En route to Council on Foreign Relations
[drive time: 15 minutes]

***​

3:05 pm DEPART Council on Foreign Relations
En route to State Department
[drive time: 15 minutes]

***​

6:00 pm DEPART State Department
En route to Private Residence
[drive time: 5 minutes]
​

The detailed schedule provided in the Abedin email contains an annotation reading: “The information contained in this email is not to be shared, forwarded or duplicated.”
Another Abedin email provides details about a meeting with Saudi Arabia’s leadership.
The Abedin correspondence includes several instances in which the Clinton top aide attempted to obtain special treatment from the State Department for business associates and relatives. In the first instance, Abedin apparently worked with Teneo co-founder and Clinton Global Initiative official Doug Band to intercede on behalf of an individual seeking a visa. In the second instance, Huma Abedin received an email from her mother, Saleha Abedin (a controversialIslamist activist) who founded and serves as dean at Dar al-Hekma University in Saudi Arabia. In the December 11, 2011, email, Saleha Abedin seeks the assistance of her daughter to help the president of her college, Dr. Suhair al Qurashi, attend a State Department “Women in Public Service” ceremony, which included remarks by Hillary Clinton. (Mrs. Clinton spoke at Dar al-Hekma University in 2010. Dr. Qurashi and Saleha Abedin introduced Mrs. Clinton’s speech and moderated the subsequent discussion.)
“Huma Abedin’s description of Hillary Clinton as ‘easily confused’ tells you all you need to know why it took a federal lawsuit to get these government emails from Clinton’s illegal email server ,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These emails also show that Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s decision to use the Clinton email server to conduct government business was dangerous and risky.”
The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch on October 30, 2015, in response to a June 5 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department, after it failed to respond to a March 18 FOIA request seeking:

• Emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-“state.gov” email address.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Clinton’s Wage Hike Would Destroy Nearly 800,000 Jobs[/h]Analysis finds lower earners hardest hit
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP​

BY: Bill McMorris
November 17, 2015 5:00 am

Hillary Clinton’s minimum wage hike could cut nearly 800,000 jobs with people at the bottom end of the pay scale suffering the steepest job losses, according to a study by two leading economists.
The Democratic frontrunner has said that she supports a $12 hourly wage andreiterated that position at Saturday’s Democratic debate because “that is what the Democrats in the Senate have put forward.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) introduced the $12 wage as the Raise the Wage Act in March. Ananalysis conducted by economists William E. Even of Miami University and David Macpherson from Trinity University found that the bill would eliminate 770,000 jobs. Nearly 85 percent of the estimated job losses will come from those earning less than $100,000 each year.
“Presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton has argued for a minimum wage increase as part of her policy platform to boost the middle class. But this analysis shows that those with household incomes between $35,000 and up to $100,000 would bear a large portion (43%) of the job loss from this higher minimum wage,” the analysis says.
The middle class will not be the only earners hurt by this policy. More than 40 percent of the job losses would come at the expense of those earning less than $35,000 per year.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to request for comment.
The economists employed the same methodology used by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that President Obama’s proposed $10.10 wage would cut 500,000 jobs.
The $12 minimum wage is 66 percent higher than the current federal minimum of $7.25, but that is on the lower end of the spectrum for the Democratic presidential primary.
Insurgent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt) and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley each support the $15 wage advocated by political powerhouse Service Employers International Union (SEIU). Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich asked Sanders what he thought of criticism of the $15 rate from an influential Democratic economist.
“Former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, Alan Krueger, has said the national increase of $15.00 could lead to undesirable and unintended consequences like job loss. What level of job loss would you consider unacceptable?” she asked.
“No public policy doesn’t have in some cases negative consequences,” Sanders said.
Clinton credited Krueger’s skepticism of the $15 rate for her decision not to embrace it, even after praising SEIU’s advocacy for the policy.
“What Alan Krueger said in the piece you’re referring to is that if we went to $15.00 there are no international comparisons,” she said. “If you go to $12.00 it would be the highest historical average we’ve ever had.”
Michael Saltsman, a labor expert at the Employment Policies Institute, said that if Clinton were serious about potential job cuts, she would pay attention to the consensus among economists that dramatic minimum wage hikes lead to higher unemployment.
“Hillary Clinton is trying to have it both ways on the minimum wage, rejecting the national $15 demand promoted by labor unions while encouraging certain locales to embrace it,” he said. “Even her compromise position of a $12 federal minimum wage would have dramatic negative effects for less-skilled employees in the middle-income households she’s focused her campaign on.”
The institute has examined the effects of minimum wage hikes similar to Clinton’s $12 proposal. It conducted a survey of more than 200 businesses in Oakland, which increased its wage from $9 to $12.25 in March.
“Of the 223 businesses surveyed, 56 percent reported that the new minimum wage caused a large increase in their labor costs,” the survey found. “Of the businesses surveyed here, roughly one in 10 said it was ‘very likely’ to close, with another 18 percent ‘somewhat likely’ to close.“
Saltsman said that Clinton should consider the course of action taken by a former president who faced a similar predicament in the recent past.
“Economic advisers to her husband Bill rejected as “too aggressive” a 40-percent minimum wage hike in 1998. The Clinton campaign should ask itself why a 66-percent hike today is any different,” Saltsman said.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Clinton Foundation Donor to Pay $95.5 Million Settlement to Justice Department[/h]For-profit education company with ties to Goldman Sachs
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP​

BY: Brent Scher
November 16, 2015 4:25 pm

A for-profit educational corporation that has donated to the Clinton Foundation agreed to pay $95.5 million to the Obama administration as a settlement for a government lawsuit alleging that it was using illegal tactics to lure in prospective students.
The Education Management Corporation was sued by the Department of Justice in 2011 for multiple recruitment violations, including paying its recruiters based on the number of students it enrolled, and exaggerating the career opportunities that were available to graduates. The lawsuit argued that the violations made the corporation ineligible for the $11 billion in state and federal financial aid it has received since 2003.
On top of the $95.5 million settlement, the group also agreed to forgive more than $100 million in loans it made to former students, according to the Associated Press.
The Education Management Corporation contributed between $5,000 and $10,000 to the Clinton Foundation through Brown Mackie College, one of the largest of the group’s four divisions. Goldman Sachs, which owned a 43 percent stake until it sold off much of the company to creditors last summer, has also donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
The lawsuit was filed based on information brought forth by whistle-blowers. It claimed that the corporation operated a “boiler-room style” sales team that was taught to “exploit applicants’ psychological vulnerabilities to convince them to enroll.
Among the applicants targeted by recruiters were individuals “who were unable to write coherently, who appeared to be under the influence of drugs, or who sought to enroll in an online program but had no computer,” according to the suit.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch praised whistle-blowers for revealing the group’s “deceptive practices.”
“This case not only highlights the abuses in the [Education Management Corporation’s] EDMC’s recruitment system; it also highlights the brave actions of EDMC employees who refused to go along with the institution’s deceptive practices,” said Lynch at a Monday news conference.
The lawsuit alleged that the group’s aggressive recruitment practices were geared toward raking in as much government aid as possible.
Although the group agreed to the settlement, it admitted no wrongdoing and said it agreed to pay the penalty based on a desire to put “these matters behind us” and focus on educating its students.
The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for comment on the settlement, but its ties to the for-profit education industry go beyond the Education Management Corporation.
The Laureate International Universities, a group of for-profit schools partially owned by the liberal billionaire George Soros, has also contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton is paid an undisclosed salary to be “honorary chancellor” of the schools, and has been described as the “face” of the massive university group.
Also contributing to the Clinton Foundation is the Apollo Group, which operates the University of Phoenix, and has been criticized for aggressively targeting veterans with G.I. Bill money to spend on education. The University of Phoenix received more than $1 billion through the G.I. Bill between 2009 and 2014, but only 16 percent of its students graduate within six years.
Kaplan, which paid a $1.3 million settlement to the Justice Department in 2014 for using unqualified instructors, also contributes to the Clinton Foundation. It was specifically targeting “African-American women who were raising two children by themselves” in the hope that they would drop out after the federal funding based on their enrollment had already been received.
Despite the Clintons’ extensive ties, Hillary Clinton has spoken out against the for-profit industry on the campaign trail for targeting “service members, veterans, and their families with false promises and deceptive marketing.”
The Clinton campaign also did not return a request for comment.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Clinton Foundation amends four years of tax returns[/h]Published November 17, 2015FoxNews.com


Facebook554 Twitter585 livefyre923 Email Print

NOW PLAYINGWhat Bill's speaking invitations reveal about the Clintons


Never autoplay videos


The Clinton Foundation announced late Monday that it had amended its tax return forms from four separate years due to errors in the reporting of donations from foreign governments.
Foundation President Donna Shalala said in a statement that the returns were revised after a voluntary review of the charity's past tax returns. She added that the corrections were not required by law.
"There is no change in our bottom line numbers: assets, liabilities, and net assets," Shalala wrote in a statement to the foundation's supporters that was obtained by Reuters. "There is nothing to suggest that the Foundation intended to conceal the receipt of government grants, which we report on our website."
The amended Form 990 tax returns were for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. An affiliated charity, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, also amended its returns for 2012 and 2013.
The foundation now reports receiving $20 million in government funds between 2010 and 2013, most of it from foreign governments. The foundation had neglected to state its government funding separately from other funding sources in its original returns.
[h=2]More on this...[/h]

• [h=3]Emails reveal influence of Clinton Foundation at State Dept.[/h]

The foundation also revealed that it raised $177 million in 2014, the year before Hillary Clinton announced her run for the presidency.
The Clinton Foundation's fundraising efforts, particularly those involving foreign governments, has come under scrutiny as Clinton moves toward the Democratic presidential nomination. Critics have said that the foundation's dealings during her tenure as secretary of state represented a conflict of interest.
Critics have also slammed the foundation after it admitted earlier this year that it had not complied with an ethics agreement that had been insisted upon by the Obama administration and signed by Clinton prior to becoming secretary of state.
"This episode demonstrates what we have long known: unabated, the Clinton Foundation's massive foreign fundraising poses a serious conflict of interest, and Hillary Clinton has no intention of voluntarily complying with ethics guidelines or federal tax laws," Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.
Clinton severed all formal ties with the foundation upon announcing her presidential run this past April, but her husband and daughter remain on the board of directors.

 

[russ1945]

4 new articles posted today and all worth the read.

 

[vitterd]

Still trying? Lmao. This old fool won't give up.

How is Trey Gowdy? Still have HILLARY stamped across his forehead?

he took one of those beatings like I hand out to gasman or Dave. Dude is out cold.

 

[Acebb]

 

[russ1945]

Acebb - she does her best thinking when she is napping and never lies when she is asleep lol. If elected and she napped for the entire 4 years this country might make it lol.

 

[Acebb]

russ,
she is the worst candidate since Dukakis. I can't believe that the Dems put all their eggs in her basket.