All I know is as long as I've been here, you and Russ' conspiracy theories have all failed. I can't recall a single theory that has actually came to fruition. So, I apologize for being a little harsh on you two, but you have to realize where I'm coming from. When I see people being wrong with everything they say, I start to question their credibility. So far the issues Russ has brought up will be a non-issue come election time. A non-issue for the common sense community that is. I'm sure the Alex Jones nutters will still be talking about Benghazi. Kind of psychotic if you ask me.
All I know is as long as I've been here, you and Russ' conspiracy theories have all failed. I can't recall a single theory that has actually came to fruition. So, I apologize for being a little harsh on you two, but you have to realize where I'm coming from. When I see people being wrong with everything they say, I start to question their credibility. So far the issues Russ has brought up will be a non-issue come election time. A non-issue for the common sense community that is. I'm sure the Alex Jones nutters will still be talking about Benghazi. Kind of psychotic if you ask me.
One problem is you're talking to people old as dirt. Russ and dave are old miserable codgers over 70 ......Walter is in his mid 60's and you saw that purple flowers pic, he looks in his 70's.... Jdeucebag might not be as old but he is clearly psychotic. They are stuck in 50's when minorities were always 2nd class citizens......these right wing loons simply have not evolved as people....intellectually they aren't capable....so they are never gonna understand what you're telling them.
What you refer to as the "common sense community" is actually the "uniformed". The uninformed get a pass you Tards do not. Psychotic, that would be you, you don't get it and you never will. You cannot even connect the dot between you and Alinsky. Hillary's past will be anything but a non-issue as 2016 gets closer.
"but you have to realize where I'm coming from" (Aktard) - that would be La La Land LOL
Oh I get it. The election cycle will pass and absolutely nothing will come out of your conspiracies just like the last 8 years I've seen you spamming these boards. You haven't been right about anything. Not a single one of your conspiracy theories lead to anything in the real world. You're a loon dude. Like a serious real life loon. Lol.
Deflection (Alinsky) Stick with the topic of this thread. All the dots are there. They were all there for Obama also and easy to trace. Conspiracy???? Definition (planning and acting together secretly), that defines the Clinton Foundation. Throw in lies and deception and you have it. They branched into Canada for obvious reasons. So if this was the Bush Foundation you would be ok with it. Right. Spamming, that would be you. Trolling at the lowest level. Drink some more Kool Aid dumbass.
Think about Russ's last decade here. Alinsky who nobody follows or cares about but Russ and gas man. Solyndra, nobody cares about. Benghazi which republican led investigation found nothing. Connecting non dots that don't exist.
Russ....just give up...you are clueless and I think you are in early to mid stages of Alzheimer's
Russ....just give up...you are clueless and I think you are in early to mid stages of Alzheimer's
For the Tards - You just never know (especially where the liberal press is concerned) - Same thing could happen with Hillary (Duh):
[h=2]UK Conservatives Win a Stunning Victory[/h]Analysis: What happened and what comes next in the United Kingdom
EMAIL
BY: Tom Rogan
May 9, 2015 5:00 am
“It is a victory most Tories could never have dreamed of, and a defeat beyond the nightmares of most of their opponents.”
That’s how Owen Jones, a columnist for The Guardian and a supporter of Ed Miliband’s Labour Party reacted to last night’s results. In a stunning victory, David Cameron’s Conservatives won 24 new seats. They now have 331 seats in Parliament, a majority of seven. Miliband has resigned as Labour’s leader. And never have pre-election polls been so wrong. This was Britain’s version of Truman’s shock 1948 presidential win. No one saw it coming.
In the run up to the election, the polls suggested a basic dead heat between Cameron and Miliband. While some expected the Conservatives to win more seats than Labour—and thus have the first chance of forming a coalition government with another party—the Conservatives were expected to lose seats overall. Labour’s abiding hope was that the Conservatives would therefore lack the seats necessary to form a governing coalition. Labour believed they could then step into that vacuum. But very few analysts expected the Conservatives to have any chance of governing outside of a new coalition. Just watch this exchange from the BBC two weeks ago: asserting his pursuit of majority, Cameron meets open disdain.
So why was everyone so stunned?
For three reasons, I think. First, the pollsters failed to account for Conservative voters who were reluctant to give their voting preference over the phone. This seems absurd, but in Britain, conservative voters are often treated with disdain when they make their opinions known. It also seems likely that many who had said they would vote for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) ultimately decided to vote Conservative. In contrast, Miliband’s refusal to support a referendum on the UK’s membership in the European Union cost him dearly. On Europe, his campaign was fundamentally out of touch with the sentiments of the British people.
Second, Labour’s campaign was arrogant. Throughout, Miliband sought to misrepresent Cameron as a man on an ideological conquest to destroy Britain’s holy National Health Service and the rest of the welfare state. Miliband’s criticisms seemed crude and opportunistic at times. Moreover, many Britons—albeit quietly—share Cameron’s perspective on the need for welfare reform. Thus, where Miliband sought to portray the Conservatives as the enemy of the vulnerable poor, Cameron’s welfare proposals earned respect from voters sick of wasteful spending. Faced with the truth of welfare dependency stories like this one and angered at paying high taxes while others live on perpetual benefits, voters decided that Cameron’s philosophy won out.
Third, Miliband was a weak leader. While he performed better than expected during Britain’s short campaign, the Conservatives were able to portray him as a man incapable of national leadership, fostering the belief that, as one commentator put it, Ed Miliband was just a bit weird. Many Conservatives will be sighing in relief that Ed’s brother, David Miliband, didn’t win the Labour Party’s leadership contest in 2010. David, a former British foreign secretary, was regarded as a highly charismatic centrist politician.
Still, this isn’t just about politics, it’s also about policy. Cameron will now have the opportunity to govern without the compromising restraints of a coalition partner. His reforms to welfare—which remains bloated and unaffordable—are likely to be more substantial than in his first term. Cameron may also attempt to meet the two-percent GDP defense spending target that all NATO members sign up to contribute. Until now, Cameron had refused to commit to two percent, fearing that coalition partners might not accept it and that it was unaffordable. Regardless, Cameron’s backbenchers are certain to push hard to make him change his mind. This is a key issue—Cameron’s support on the right wing of his party will take careful management.
But this election has also radically re-shaped Parliament and quite potentially, Britain herself.
The other major story from last night, of course, was Labour’s evisceration in Scotland. After long being the dominant representation of Scotland in Parliament, Labour now holds just one seat north of the English border. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats also each hold one seat. Instead, the separatist left-wing Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) has scored a William Wallace-style populist revolution. Now holding 56 seats (up from six in 2010), the SNP aims to re-energize the Scottish Independence movement and weaken Cameron’s efforts to cut government spending. As James Hargrave, a political operative in London, told me, “These numbers are mad. This is a wipe out.”
Cameron will now face two distinct blocs of opposition to his policies: Labour and the SNP. In addition, with the Liberal Democrats now annihilated—down from 57 seats to eight—they also might forge a tacit alliance with Labour. Like Miliband, the Liberal Democrats’ leader, Nick Clegg, fell upon his sword Friday. His party may decide to abandon his centrist sentiments and run for the left.
What comes next?
Well, Cameron’s priorities, especially when it comes to spending and the economy, will be clear. Many Britons chose welfare because they have no incentive not to do so. Work, in short, doesn’t pay. While protecting the most vulnerable in British society—the physically or mentally disabled—Mr. Cameron is likely to impose far stricter regulations on the allowances that other citizens receive from government. His intent will be twofold: to encourage the long term unemployed to seek training or employment and to reduce government spending that feeds economic inactivity. Cameron is aware that Britain’s present productivity deficit must be addressed if the nation is to be able to compete successfully in the global economy. And while the Conservative reforms will raise uproar on the populist left, Cameron knows he won’t achieve fiscal balance without cuts. He has five more years to re-shape Britain for the better.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged United Kingdom. Bookmark the permalink.
[h=2]UK Conservatives Win a Stunning Victory[/h]Analysis: What happened and what comes next in the United Kingdom
David Cameron / AP
BY: Tom Rogan
May 9, 2015 5:00 am
“It is a victory most Tories could never have dreamed of, and a defeat beyond the nightmares of most of their opponents.”
That’s how Owen Jones, a columnist for The Guardian and a supporter of Ed Miliband’s Labour Party reacted to last night’s results. In a stunning victory, David Cameron’s Conservatives won 24 new seats. They now have 331 seats in Parliament, a majority of seven. Miliband has resigned as Labour’s leader. And never have pre-election polls been so wrong. This was Britain’s version of Truman’s shock 1948 presidential win. No one saw it coming.
In the run up to the election, the polls suggested a basic dead heat between Cameron and Miliband. While some expected the Conservatives to win more seats than Labour—and thus have the first chance of forming a coalition government with another party—the Conservatives were expected to lose seats overall. Labour’s abiding hope was that the Conservatives would therefore lack the seats necessary to form a governing coalition. Labour believed they could then step into that vacuum. But very few analysts expected the Conservatives to have any chance of governing outside of a new coalition. Just watch this exchange from the BBC two weeks ago: asserting his pursuit of majority, Cameron meets open disdain.
So why was everyone so stunned?
For three reasons, I think. First, the pollsters failed to account for Conservative voters who were reluctant to give their voting preference over the phone. This seems absurd, but in Britain, conservative voters are often treated with disdain when they make their opinions known. It also seems likely that many who had said they would vote for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) ultimately decided to vote Conservative. In contrast, Miliband’s refusal to support a referendum on the UK’s membership in the European Union cost him dearly. On Europe, his campaign was fundamentally out of touch with the sentiments of the British people.
Second, Labour’s campaign was arrogant. Throughout, Miliband sought to misrepresent Cameron as a man on an ideological conquest to destroy Britain’s holy National Health Service and the rest of the welfare state. Miliband’s criticisms seemed crude and opportunistic at times. Moreover, many Britons—albeit quietly—share Cameron’s perspective on the need for welfare reform. Thus, where Miliband sought to portray the Conservatives as the enemy of the vulnerable poor, Cameron’s welfare proposals earned respect from voters sick of wasteful spending. Faced with the truth of welfare dependency stories like this one and angered at paying high taxes while others live on perpetual benefits, voters decided that Cameron’s philosophy won out.
Third, Miliband was a weak leader. While he performed better than expected during Britain’s short campaign, the Conservatives were able to portray him as a man incapable of national leadership, fostering the belief that, as one commentator put it, Ed Miliband was just a bit weird. Many Conservatives will be sighing in relief that Ed’s brother, David Miliband, didn’t win the Labour Party’s leadership contest in 2010. David, a former British foreign secretary, was regarded as a highly charismatic centrist politician.
Still, this isn’t just about politics, it’s also about policy. Cameron will now have the opportunity to govern without the compromising restraints of a coalition partner. His reforms to welfare—which remains bloated and unaffordable—are likely to be more substantial than in his first term. Cameron may also attempt to meet the two-percent GDP defense spending target that all NATO members sign up to contribute. Until now, Cameron had refused to commit to two percent, fearing that coalition partners might not accept it and that it was unaffordable. Regardless, Cameron’s backbenchers are certain to push hard to make him change his mind. This is a key issue—Cameron’s support on the right wing of his party will take careful management.
But this election has also radically re-shaped Parliament and quite potentially, Britain herself.
The other major story from last night, of course, was Labour’s evisceration in Scotland. After long being the dominant representation of Scotland in Parliament, Labour now holds just one seat north of the English border. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats also each hold one seat. Instead, the separatist left-wing Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) has scored a William Wallace-style populist revolution. Now holding 56 seats (up from six in 2010), the SNP aims to re-energize the Scottish Independence movement and weaken Cameron’s efforts to cut government spending. As James Hargrave, a political operative in London, told me, “These numbers are mad. This is a wipe out.”
Cameron will now face two distinct blocs of opposition to his policies: Labour and the SNP. In addition, with the Liberal Democrats now annihilated—down from 57 seats to eight—they also might forge a tacit alliance with Labour. Like Miliband, the Liberal Democrats’ leader, Nick Clegg, fell upon his sword Friday. His party may decide to abandon his centrist sentiments and run for the left.
What comes next?
Well, Cameron’s priorities, especially when it comes to spending and the economy, will be clear. Many Britons chose welfare because they have no incentive not to do so. Work, in short, doesn’t pay. While protecting the most vulnerable in British society—the physically or mentally disabled—Mr. Cameron is likely to impose far stricter regulations on the allowances that other citizens receive from government. His intent will be twofold: to encourage the long term unemployed to seek training or employment and to reduce government spending that feeds economic inactivity. Cameron is aware that Britain’s present productivity deficit must be addressed if the nation is to be able to compete successfully in the global economy. And while the Conservative reforms will raise uproar on the populist left, Cameron knows he won’t achieve fiscal balance without cuts. He has five more years to re-shape Britain for the better.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged United Kingdom. Bookmark the permalink.
Just another dot ?
Tony Rodham’s Ties Invite Scrutiny for Hillary and Bill Clinton
By STEVE EDERMAY 10, 2015
Photo
Tony Rodham in 2008. For decades he has tried to use his connections with his sister and her husband to further his pursuits. CreditJessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
The heavyset 60-year-old man who walked with a cane seemed an unlikely speaker at the glamorous launch party for a cosmetics company held in Santa Monica, Calif., in March.
But Tony Rodham appeared at ease among the special guests and well-heeled investors, offering them encouragement as well as an invitation.
“If there’s anything I can ever do for any of you, let me know,” Mr. Rodham said. “I’ll be more than happy to do it.”
A promotional video of the party that the cosmetics company later released identified the speaker as “the youngest brother of former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,” a relationship that has been Mr. Rodham’s calling card since the days of the Clinton White House.
Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGE
On and off for two decades, the affable Mr. Rodham has tried to use his connections with his sister and his brother-in-law, former President Bill Clinton, to further a business career that has seen more failures than successes. The connections to the Clintons have given Mr. Rodham, a self-described “facilitator,” a unique appeal and a range of opportunities, like addressing Chinese investor conferences and joining an advisory board of a company seeking permission to mine for gold in Haiti.
Continue reading the main story
Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?
But his business dealings have often invited public scrutiny and uncomfortable questions for the Clintons as Mr. Rodham has cycled through a variety of ventures, leveraging his ties to them and sometimes directly seeking their help.
When Mr. Clinton worked as a co-chairman of Haiti’s earthquake recovery commission, Mr. Rodham and his partners sought a $22 million deal to rebuild homes in the country. In court proceedings three years ago in an unrelated lawsuit, Mr. Rodham explained how “a guy in Haiti” had “donated” 10,000 acres of land to him and described how he had leaned on Mr. Clinton to get the rebuilding project funded amid bureaucratic delays.
“I deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials,” Mr. Rodham said, according to a transcript of his testimony. “I hound my brother-in-law, because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.
“And he keeps telling me, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.’ Well, tomorrow hasn’t come yet.”
Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project never did happen. The Clinton Foundation said in a statement that it was not aware of Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project and had no involvement in it. Mr. Clinton’s office said he had not been involved in any of Mr. Rodham’s pursuits in Haiti.
But Mr. Rodham was able to prevail on the former president for help in other ways.
When Mr. Rodham was short on cash in 2010, Mr. Clinton helped get him a job for $72,000 a year raising investments in GreenTech Automotive, anelectric car company then owned by Terry McAuliffe, an old friend of Mr. Clinton’s and now the governor of Virginia.
“I was complaining to my brother-in-law I didn’t have any money. And he asked McAuliffe to give me a job,” Mr. Rodham said during the court proceedings, which were the result of a lawsuit over unpaid legal bills filed by his lawyer in a child support case.
A brother down on his luck seeking help from more successful siblings is a familiar story, and presidents and their families have hardly been immune from that sometimes uncomfortable situation. For the Clintons, Tony Rodham has not been the only source of embarrassment.
Mrs. Clinton’s other brother, Hugh Rodham, stumbled through an unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in Florida during Mr. Clinton’s first term. Roger Clinton, the former president’s brother, served a year in federal prison on a cocaine distribution charge. And all three were involved in lobbying Mr. Clinton for pardons for their associates as he left office, prompting a congressional inquiry.
“They’re all colorful,” Rahm Emanuel, a former Clinton aide who later became mayor of Chicago, said in an interview in 2001. “They’re all living large.”
As Mrs. Clinton began her 2016 campaign for the presidency, Hugh Rodham and Roger Clinton had faded from public view, but Tony Rodham emerged as a controversial figure. A government investigation in March found that GreenTech, which sought green cards for its Chinese investors through an American government program, had received special treatment in the handling of its visa applications. The report described instances when Mr. McAuliffe and Mr. Rodham contacted an official from the Department of Homeland Security to complain about the pace of the visa process.
Mr. Rodham’s unsuccessful pursuit of housing contracts in Haiti, which has not previously been reported, raised new questions.
As Mrs. Clinton campaigns, she speaks fondly of her brothers. At a stop in Iowa, she recalled them working together at her father’s drapery business. Her official campaign biography prominently mentions them.
“She loves her family more than anything,” said Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “Her brothers have always been there for her, and she will always be there for them. Each, though, have their own lives, their own jobs, their own ups and downs.”
Continue reading the main story
As the youngest of three children, Tony Rodham has lived in the shadow of his sister. He never finished college, and he worked at a variety of jobs — as a prison guard, private detective and at the Democratic National Committee — until after the Clintons were in the White House, when he became a consultant and deal broker. He was once married to Nicole Boxer, the daughter of Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
He lives with his second wife, Megan, and two young children in a large house on a hill in Vienna, Va., a suburb of Washington. He declined to speak to a reporter who went to his door one afternoon in April, and he did not respond to other messages seeking comment for this article.
But in a statement from Mr. Rodham passed on by the Clinton campaign, he said that he wanted to protect his family’s privacy and that he would not engage in disputing claims about him, which he said he considered to be political attacks.
His wife said the family was excited about Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for president.
“The kids love their Aunt Hillary,” she said. “We are supportive, and we are excited.”
Mr. Rodham described his dire financial situation during the court proceedings in 2012. As a result of a series of failed business deals — including some in oil and gas, water, housing, tutoring and pharmaceuticals — he said he had not made a mortgage payment in 10 months and was fighting home foreclosure.
The Clintons, he said, had been generous, even paying for his son’s schooling, but they were not going to give him more money. “Hillary and Bill are done,” he said. “I mean, look at what they’ve done for me. They’ve given me money all the time.”
Mr. Clinton’s willingness to assist in getting him work with Mr. McAuliffe was helpful, Mr. Rodham said, but at $6,000 a month, it was not enough. “It’s kind of like the job he got me a long time ago when I worked in the prison,” he said.
Even more important, according to Mr. Rodham, was what he said was going to be Mr. Clinton’s help on his Haiti rebuilding project. That project came about when Sheldon Drobny, an old friend, contacted Mr. Rodham about making a connection for a Chicago-area contractor, who wanted to become involved in building houses in Haiti.
“We were trying to help. Period,” Mr. Drobny, a co-founder of Air America Radio, the former liberal talk network, said in a phone interview. He called the effort “humanitarian.”
Mr. Drobny said he had connected with Mr. Rodham because of what he believed were his ties to the Clinton Foundation, which was playing a central role in the rebuilding efforts. Ultimately, he said, nothing happened “because the Haiti government was not cooperative.”
The Clinton Foundation said in its statement that aside from supporting a housing exposition in Haiti, it had not been directly involved with any housing projects. The foundation also said Mr. Rodham’s project had not been among the more than 300 submitted for consideration at the expo.
Mr. Rodham projected that he could make $1 million on the Haiti deal if it came to pass — enough money, he said in his court testimony, to take his family to Disney World and cover his debts, including his legal bills and his long overdue federal taxes.
Mr. Rodham eventually settled his bill with his former lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo M. Carlberg. Ms. Carlberg said in a phone interview that, despite her lawsuit, she did not have a negative view of Mr. Rodham. “I found a lot of good in Tony,” she said.
He is still sought after for deals and personal appearances.
That was the case in March when Mr. Rodham attended the celebration of Wynn Beauty & Health in Santa Monica, which included a performance from an “American Idol” contestant. In addition to appearing in the promotional video, Mr. Rodham posed for at least a dozen photos.
But after a reporter contacted Wynn Beauty & Health, Mr. Rodham was removed from the video and photos of him disappeared from the company’s Facebook page. In an email, the company said that Mr. Rodham was not involved in the business and that he had appeared at the celebration only as a longtime friend offering congratulations.
Tony Rodham’s Ties Invite Scrutiny for Hillary and Bill Clinton
By STEVE EDERMAY 10, 2015
Photo
Tony Rodham in 2008. For decades he has tried to use his connections with his sister and her husband to further his pursuits. CreditJessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
- Save
The heavyset 60-year-old man who walked with a cane seemed an unlikely speaker at the glamorous launch party for a cosmetics company held in Santa Monica, Calif., in March.
But Tony Rodham appeared at ease among the special guests and well-heeled investors, offering them encouragement as well as an invitation.
“If there’s anything I can ever do for any of you, let me know,” Mr. Rodham said. “I’ll be more than happy to do it.”
A promotional video of the party that the cosmetics company later released identified the speaker as “the youngest brother of former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,” a relationship that has been Mr. Rodham’s calling card since the days of the Clinton White House.
Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGE
-
Political Memo: Hillary Clinton Shows New Willingness to Tackle Risky IssuesMAY 7, 2015
-
Iowans Unfazed by Criticism of Hillary ClintonMAY 7, 2015
-
Hillary Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll SaysMAY 5, 2015
-
What Hillary Clinton Would Need to Do to WinAPRIL 12, 2015
On and off for two decades, the affable Mr. Rodham has tried to use his connections with his sister and his brother-in-law, former President Bill Clinton, to further a business career that has seen more failures than successes. The connections to the Clintons have given Mr. Rodham, a self-described “facilitator,” a unique appeal and a range of opportunities, like addressing Chinese investor conferences and joining an advisory board of a company seeking permission to mine for gold in Haiti.
Continue reading the main story
Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?
But his business dealings have often invited public scrutiny and uncomfortable questions for the Clintons as Mr. Rodham has cycled through a variety of ventures, leveraging his ties to them and sometimes directly seeking their help.
When Mr. Clinton worked as a co-chairman of Haiti’s earthquake recovery commission, Mr. Rodham and his partners sought a $22 million deal to rebuild homes in the country. In court proceedings three years ago in an unrelated lawsuit, Mr. Rodham explained how “a guy in Haiti” had “donated” 10,000 acres of land to him and described how he had leaned on Mr. Clinton to get the rebuilding project funded amid bureaucratic delays.
“I deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials,” Mr. Rodham said, according to a transcript of his testimony. “I hound my brother-in-law, because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.
“And he keeps telling me, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.’ Well, tomorrow hasn’t come yet.”
Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project never did happen. The Clinton Foundation said in a statement that it was not aware of Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project and had no involvement in it. Mr. Clinton’s office said he had not been involved in any of Mr. Rodham’s pursuits in Haiti.
But Mr. Rodham was able to prevail on the former president for help in other ways.
When Mr. Rodham was short on cash in 2010, Mr. Clinton helped get him a job for $72,000 a year raising investments in GreenTech Automotive, anelectric car company then owned by Terry McAuliffe, an old friend of Mr. Clinton’s and now the governor of Virginia.
“I was complaining to my brother-in-law I didn’t have any money. And he asked McAuliffe to give me a job,” Mr. Rodham said during the court proceedings, which were the result of a lawsuit over unpaid legal bills filed by his lawyer in a child support case.
A brother down on his luck seeking help from more successful siblings is a familiar story, and presidents and their families have hardly been immune from that sometimes uncomfortable situation. For the Clintons, Tony Rodham has not been the only source of embarrassment.
Mrs. Clinton’s other brother, Hugh Rodham, stumbled through an unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in Florida during Mr. Clinton’s first term. Roger Clinton, the former president’s brother, served a year in federal prison on a cocaine distribution charge. And all three were involved in lobbying Mr. Clinton for pardons for their associates as he left office, prompting a congressional inquiry.
“They’re all colorful,” Rahm Emanuel, a former Clinton aide who later became mayor of Chicago, said in an interview in 2001. “They’re all living large.”
As Mrs. Clinton began her 2016 campaign for the presidency, Hugh Rodham and Roger Clinton had faded from public view, but Tony Rodham emerged as a controversial figure. A government investigation in March found that GreenTech, which sought green cards for its Chinese investors through an American government program, had received special treatment in the handling of its visa applications. The report described instances when Mr. McAuliffe and Mr. Rodham contacted an official from the Department of Homeland Security to complain about the pace of the visa process.
Mr. Rodham’s unsuccessful pursuit of housing contracts in Haiti, which has not previously been reported, raised new questions.
As Mrs. Clinton campaigns, she speaks fondly of her brothers. At a stop in Iowa, she recalled them working together at her father’s drapery business. Her official campaign biography prominently mentions them.
“She loves her family more than anything,” said Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “Her brothers have always been there for her, and she will always be there for them. Each, though, have their own lives, their own jobs, their own ups and downs.”
Continue reading the main story
- Today in Politics: Trade Fight Intensifies as Vote Looms06:51 AM ET
- Rand Paul Plays Down Comments on Military Exercise After Mockery 3:31 PM ET
- Mike Huckabee Defends Endorsement of Diabetes Product 1:52 PM ET
As the youngest of three children, Tony Rodham has lived in the shadow of his sister. He never finished college, and he worked at a variety of jobs — as a prison guard, private detective and at the Democratic National Committee — until after the Clintons were in the White House, when he became a consultant and deal broker. He was once married to Nicole Boxer, the daughter of Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
He lives with his second wife, Megan, and two young children in a large house on a hill in Vienna, Va., a suburb of Washington. He declined to speak to a reporter who went to his door one afternoon in April, and he did not respond to other messages seeking comment for this article.
But in a statement from Mr. Rodham passed on by the Clinton campaign, he said that he wanted to protect his family’s privacy and that he would not engage in disputing claims about him, which he said he considered to be political attacks.
His wife said the family was excited about Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for president.
“The kids love their Aunt Hillary,” she said. “We are supportive, and we are excited.”
Mr. Rodham described his dire financial situation during the court proceedings in 2012. As a result of a series of failed business deals — including some in oil and gas, water, housing, tutoring and pharmaceuticals — he said he had not made a mortgage payment in 10 months and was fighting home foreclosure.
The Clintons, he said, had been generous, even paying for his son’s schooling, but they were not going to give him more money. “Hillary and Bill are done,” he said. “I mean, look at what they’ve done for me. They’ve given me money all the time.”
Mr. Clinton’s willingness to assist in getting him work with Mr. McAuliffe was helpful, Mr. Rodham said, but at $6,000 a month, it was not enough. “It’s kind of like the job he got me a long time ago when I worked in the prison,” he said.
Even more important, according to Mr. Rodham, was what he said was going to be Mr. Clinton’s help on his Haiti rebuilding project. That project came about when Sheldon Drobny, an old friend, contacted Mr. Rodham about making a connection for a Chicago-area contractor, who wanted to become involved in building houses in Haiti.
“We were trying to help. Period,” Mr. Drobny, a co-founder of Air America Radio, the former liberal talk network, said in a phone interview. He called the effort “humanitarian.”
Mr. Drobny said he had connected with Mr. Rodham because of what he believed were his ties to the Clinton Foundation, which was playing a central role in the rebuilding efforts. Ultimately, he said, nothing happened “because the Haiti government was not cooperative.”
The Clinton Foundation said in its statement that aside from supporting a housing exposition in Haiti, it had not been directly involved with any housing projects. The foundation also said Mr. Rodham’s project had not been among the more than 300 submitted for consideration at the expo.
Mr. Rodham projected that he could make $1 million on the Haiti deal if it came to pass — enough money, he said in his court testimony, to take his family to Disney World and cover his debts, including his legal bills and his long overdue federal taxes.
Mr. Rodham eventually settled his bill with his former lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo M. Carlberg. Ms. Carlberg said in a phone interview that, despite her lawsuit, she did not have a negative view of Mr. Rodham. “I found a lot of good in Tony,” she said.
He is still sought after for deals and personal appearances.
That was the case in March when Mr. Rodham attended the celebration of Wynn Beauty & Health in Santa Monica, which included a performance from an “American Idol” contestant. In addition to appearing in the promotional video, Mr. Rodham posed for at least a dozen photos.
But after a reporter contacted Wynn Beauty & Health, Mr. Rodham was removed from the video and photos of him disappeared from the company’s Facebook page. In an email, the company said that Mr. Rodham was not involved in the business and that he had appeared at the celebration only as a longtime friend offering congratulations.
The Clinton Foundation scandal cycle is already spinning off new complications. A case in point: After being the subject of a spate of negative newspaper accounts about potential conflicts of interest and management dysfunction this winter — long before Clinton Cash — the Clinton Foundation wound up on a "watchlist" maintained by the Charity Navigator, the New Jersey-based nonprofit watchdog. The Navigator, dubbed the "most prominent" nonprofit watchdog by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is a powerful and feared player in the nonprofit world.
...
Navigator executives counter that the Foundation has demanded they extend the Clintons special treatment. They also allege the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member. "They felt they were of such importance that we should deviate from our normal process. They were irritated by that," says Berger.
^ Notice how uncurious the left are about any of this.
...
Navigator executives counter that the Foundation has demanded they extend the Clintons special treatment. They also allege the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member. "They felt they were of such importance that we should deviate from our normal process. They were irritated by that," says Berger.
^ Notice how uncurious the left are about any of this.
[h=1]5 ‘CLINTON CASH’ REVELATIONS THAT HAVE LEFTISTS STEAMING[/h]
The Associated Press
by BEN SHAPIRO11 May 2015324
[h=2]Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash has the Hillary Clinton campaign so riled up that they have now posted an entire webpage attempting to debunk claims in the book via obfuscation and misdirection.[/h]Thus far, the so-called Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has apparently hijacked The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other leftist outlets, all of whom are tracking the claims Schweizer makes. But it’s not just the nouveau VRWC concerned about corruption in the Clinton camp. The entire left should be furious with the Clintons – not merely over their corruption, which the left routinely excuses, but over their capitulation to some of the worst human rights abusers and environmental exploiters on the planet. Here are the top five new Clinton Cash revelations that should spark ire between Hillary Clinton and her leftist base:
Mowing Down Rainforests. According to Clinton Cash, just after Hillary and Bill Clinton spent an evening with the president of Colombia, the government of Colombia promptly granted exclusive approval to Prima Colombia Properties. That company was owned by longtime Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra, As Schweizer writes:
Fostering More Oil Drilling. Schweizer reports that in June 2010, just after Hillary and Bill spent a charming evening with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Pacific Rubiales, another company associated with Giustra, won a lucrative drilling lease including six plots from the Colombian government. These were controversial plots, including acreage in the Putumayo Basin and the Llanos Basin near the Andes Mountains, as well as the Ciusiana-Cupiagua.
Protecting an African Warlord. It wasn’t just Kazakh dictators to whom the Clintons lent a helping hand. Hillary Clinton, as senator from New York, had cosponsored the 2006 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which endangered the business of Lukas Lundin, a major Swedish mining investor. In 2007, the Clinton Foundation received $100 million from Lundin for Africa. The Lundin Group was already in hot water for drilling for oil in Sudan, which was under international sanctions; at the time, the Lundin Group was “under investigation by the International Prosecution Chamber in Stockholm for complicity in ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity,’” according to Clinton Cash. Once Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she stopped implementing “any of the key provisions in the law that she had strongly advocated only a few years earlier – before Lundin made his contribution.” That allowed Lundin to keep reaping enormous profits.
Open Pit Coal Mining. In June 2009, the Clinton Giustra initiative took two millions shares of Polo Resources. Within two months, the US ambassador to Bangladesh helped facilitate open pit mining in that country via the energy advisor to the prime minister of Bangladesh, a move that benefitted – you guessed it – Polo Resources, which had a stake in the Phulbari Mines. In February 2012, the United Nations announced, “The construction of an open-pit coal mine in Bangladesh could displace hundreds of thousands of people and jeopardize their access to basic needs.” The UN recommended that the Phulbari coal mine not be allowed to proceed.
Nuclear Development. Leaving aside the allegations regarding Uranium One, in 2014, Sant Chatwal, a longtime Clinton friend and donor, pleaded guilty to funneling over $180,000 to candidates including Hillary Clinton. He said openly that he “spent tons of money, time and effort to make sure that the [Indian-US] nuclear deal goes through.” As senator, Hillary Clinton remained “remarkably silent” as the United States began to make moves to loosen nuclear provisions of international agreements with regard to India. Over time, the Clintons became close with one Amar Singh, an Indian politician who gave somewhere between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. In the end, Schweizer writes, then-Senator Clinton ended up backing “the passage of the Indian nuclear deal, despite the public opposition of her closest advisers and the fact that it was a clear reversal of her previous policy positions.”
Hillary’s troubles with corruption allegations aren’t going to end anytime soon. She’s been able to avoid total blowback from the left thus far, despite those allegations. But should the left latch on to any of her violations of basic human rights and environmentalist core principles, that immunity could disappear quickly.
by BEN SHAPIRO11 May 2015324
[h=2]Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash has the Hillary Clinton campaign so riled up that they have now posted an entire webpage attempting to debunk claims in the book via obfuscation and misdirection.[/h]Thus far, the so-called Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has apparently hijacked The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other leftist outlets, all of whom are tracking the claims Schweizer makes. But it’s not just the nouveau VRWC concerned about corruption in the Clinton camp. The entire left should be furious with the Clintons – not merely over their corruption, which the left routinely excuses, but over their capitulation to some of the worst human rights abusers and environmental exploiters on the planet. Here are the top five new Clinton Cash revelations that should spark ire between Hillary Clinton and her leftist base:
Mowing Down Rainforests. According to Clinton Cash, just after Hillary and Bill Clinton spent an evening with the president of Colombia, the government of Colombia promptly granted exclusive approval to Prima Colombia Properties. That company was owned by longtime Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra, As Schweizer writes:
Days after Hillary left Bogotá, Prima Colombia Properties, which Frank Giustra has ownership interest in through a shell company called Flagship Industries, announced that it had acquired the right to cut timber in a biologically diverse forest on the pristine Colombian shoreline.
Giustra has a long history with the Clintons, giving the foundation over $100 million and allowing Bill to use his plane some 26 times. Giustra allegedly used his connection with Bill to gain connections to the Kazakh government, benefitting his companies. Giustra was also a major shareholder in Uranium One, and his former partners allegedly benefited heavily from the relationship between Uranium One leadership and the Clintons when Hillary’s State Department looked the other way on Russia’s buy-up of the uranium company.
Fostering More Oil Drilling. Schweizer reports that in June 2010, just after Hillary and Bill spent a charming evening with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Pacific Rubiales, another company associated with Giustra, won a lucrative drilling lease including six plots from the Colombian government. These were controversial plots, including acreage in the Putumayo Basin and the Llanos Basin near the Andes Mountains, as well as the Ciusiana-Cupiagua.
Protecting an African Warlord. It wasn’t just Kazakh dictators to whom the Clintons lent a helping hand. Hillary Clinton, as senator from New York, had cosponsored the 2006 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which endangered the business of Lukas Lundin, a major Swedish mining investor. In 2007, the Clinton Foundation received $100 million from Lundin for Africa. The Lundin Group was already in hot water for drilling for oil in Sudan, which was under international sanctions; at the time, the Lundin Group was “under investigation by the International Prosecution Chamber in Stockholm for complicity in ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity,’” according to Clinton Cash. Once Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she stopped implementing “any of the key provisions in the law that she had strongly advocated only a few years earlier – before Lundin made his contribution.” That allowed Lundin to keep reaping enormous profits.
Open Pit Coal Mining. In June 2009, the Clinton Giustra initiative took two millions shares of Polo Resources. Within two months, the US ambassador to Bangladesh helped facilitate open pit mining in that country via the energy advisor to the prime minister of Bangladesh, a move that benefitted – you guessed it – Polo Resources, which had a stake in the Phulbari Mines. In February 2012, the United Nations announced, “The construction of an open-pit coal mine in Bangladesh could displace hundreds of thousands of people and jeopardize their access to basic needs.” The UN recommended that the Phulbari coal mine not be allowed to proceed.
Nuclear Development. Leaving aside the allegations regarding Uranium One, in 2014, Sant Chatwal, a longtime Clinton friend and donor, pleaded guilty to funneling over $180,000 to candidates including Hillary Clinton. He said openly that he “spent tons of money, time and effort to make sure that the [Indian-US] nuclear deal goes through.” As senator, Hillary Clinton remained “remarkably silent” as the United States began to make moves to loosen nuclear provisions of international agreements with regard to India. Over time, the Clintons became close with one Amar Singh, an Indian politician who gave somewhere between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. In the end, Schweizer writes, then-Senator Clinton ended up backing “the passage of the Indian nuclear deal, despite the public opposition of her closest advisers and the fact that it was a clear reversal of her previous policy positions.”
Hillary’s troubles with corruption allegations aren’t going to end anytime soon. She’s been able to avoid total blowback from the left thus far, despite those allegations. But should the left latch on to any of her violations of basic human rights and environmentalist core principles, that immunity could disappear quickly.
Lmao! I guess if that's what you got out of him trying to do a housing project that the Clinton's turned down... that's fair enough. As for the real world, not a single person will ever care about that joke of a story, lmao!! As much credit as Obama's family who he's never even seen doesn't think highly of him. You're a special kind of stupid.
" As for the real world, not a( single ) person will ever care about that joke of a story, lmao!! remove single and insert Libtard lol
You are probably one of those dumbasses who never remembers the punch line to a joke. And I will bet her Bro gets something from the Foundation to boot. Oh well that is all on the accountant lol.
I just find it funny how he actually finds these stories to be like serious offenses. I regretfully read that article about her brother and it is so stupid, lol. Seems like a degen sibling trying to use his sisters name and get some $$$ for it. What a shocker, never been done in the history of mankind. She should be in jail, lol! Poor dude has some Ace like problems.
