[h=1]Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days[/h]
By Chris Cillizza May 11 at 3:03 PM
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton takes part in a roundtable of young Nevadans discussing immigration as she campaigns for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination at Rancho High School in Las Vegas on May 5. (Mike Blake/Reuters)
Welcome to day 29 of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign!
In those 29 days – including April 12, the day she announced, and today – Clinton has taken a total of eight questions from the press. That breaks out to roughly one question every 3.6 days. Of late, she's taken even fewer questions than that. According to media reports, the last day Clinton answered a question was April 21 in New Hampshire; that means that she hasn't taken a question from the media in 20 straight days.
Carly Fiorina, one of the many newly minted Republicans running for president, is doing everything she can to shine a light on Clinton's close-mouthed approach with the press. This came from Fiorina deputy campaign manager Sasha Isgur Flores this morning:
And it's not just the Republican candidates attacking Clinton on her silence. The New York Times posted an item on its "First Draft" blog last week titled "Questions for Hillary Clinton: Immigration" in which Amy Chozick wrote: "This is the first installment of a regular First Draft feature in which The Times will publish questions we would have asked Mrs. Clinton had we had the opportunity." And, late last month, I offered up seven questions Clinton should answer.
The Clinton campaign's response to all of this? Blah. Reporters whining – like they always do. And, as every Clinton staffer is quick to note, she hasanswered questions from lots of regular people during her first month as a candidate – holding roundtables in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. They are also quick to note that she makes opening statements at these
By Chris Cillizza May 11 at 3:03 PM
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton takes part in a roundtable of young Nevadans discussing immigration as she campaigns for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination at Rancho High School in Las Vegas on May 5. (Mike Blake/Reuters)
Welcome to day 29 of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign!
In those 29 days – including April 12, the day she announced, and today – Clinton has taken a total of eight questions from the press. That breaks out to roughly one question every 3.6 days. Of late, she's taken even fewer questions than that. According to media reports, the last day Clinton answered a question was April 21 in New Hampshire; that means that she hasn't taken a question from the media in 20 straight days.
Carly Fiorina, one of the many newly minted Republicans running for president, is doing everything she can to shine a light on Clinton's close-mouthed approach with the press. This came from Fiorina deputy campaign manager Sasha Isgur Flores this morning:
In the last eight days, Carly has been interviewed almost 30 times and answered well over 300 questions. She continues to impress voters, pundits, and reporters alike with her willingness to share her thoughts and ideas – and to answer any question, from whether she likes hot dogs to how she would tackle the crisis in the Middle East. ... This is in stark contrast to many other candidates – and most especially to Hillary Clinton.
The Clinton campaign's response to all of this? Blah. Reporters whining – like they always do. And, as every Clinton staffer is quick to note, she hasanswered questions from lots of regular people during her first month as a candidate – holding roundtables in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. They are also quick to note that she makes opening statements at these
[h=2]Clinton Foundation Donors Fill Hillary’s Campaign Coffers[/h]A majority of Clinton’s publicly reported fundraisers are being hosted by high-dollar foundation donors
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
May 12, 2015 5:00 am
High-dollar donors to Hillary Clinton’s family foundation have hosted the majority of the Democratic presidential candidate’s early fundraisers, data compiled by political spending watchdogs reveal.
Twelve of the 21 Hillary for America fundraising events reported by the Sunlight Foundation have been or will be hosted by donors to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to Sunlight’s Political Party Time website, which tracks fundraising events.
The foundation donors hosting fundraisers include some of the largest supporters of Clinton’s past political efforts. Together, they have given as much as $90 million to the foundation, according to donor disclosures on its website.
The largest foundation donor to host one of the events is Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner. Clinton will attend a fundraiser at his home on May 20. Eychaner has donated more than $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton fundraisers’ donations to the foundation have come by way of personal contributions as well as through foundations and private companies that they own or operate.
Last week, Clinton attended fundraisers at the San Francisco homes of billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and Susie Tompkins Buell, founder of the Esprit clothing brand.
Steyer has personally donated to the foundation. Buell has done so in a personal capacity and through her own eponymous foundation and a donor-advised fund of a separate philanthropic group. The latter has contributed as much as $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Hedge fund manager Marc Lasry has personally donated as much as $250,000. His firm, Avenue Capital Management II, LP, has chipped in another $25,000 to $50,000.
The foundation lists donations in ranges, making it difficult to know exactly how much each donor has contributed. It also declines to say when specific contributions were made. More than 1,000 donors to the group remain anonymous.
The foundation has become a source of controversy in recent weeks following revelations that Clinton, as secretary of state, may have taken actions that benefitted foreign governments and corporations that donated to the foundation.
Details of those transactions were revealed in a new book, titled Clinton Cash, by Hoover Institute fellow Peter Schweizer. Clinton’s presidential campaign is going to extreme lengths to discredit Schweizer following the book’s release.
In the book, Schweizer suggests the foundation has served to advance the Clintons’ political aspirations since the end of Bill’s presidency.
“Perhaps the most important function of the foundation is to bolster Bill and Hillary’s reputations as global humanitarians by bringing relief and care to people all over the world,” Schweizer wrote.
“This reputation not only flatters the ex-president’s ego and benefits Hillary’s political career, but it also has real value both in terms of global influence and financial reward.”
Many of the foundation donors hosting Hillary for America fundraisers are long-time Clinton supporters. Haim and Cheryl Saban, whose foundation has given as much as $25 million to Clinton’s, backed her 2008 presidential bid, as did Buell, Lasry, and Eychaner.
Some Clinton Foundation donors have also contributed recently to other groups expected to back her candidacy, formally or informally.
The TomKat Charitable Trust, the foundation run by Steyer and his wife, is a major donor to the Center for American Progress, which was founded by Clinton campaign operative John Podesta and is expected to play a major role in crafting Clinton’s policy positions.
Steven Rattner and his wife Maureen White are also CAP donors. They have given as much as $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation personally and through their own foundation. They will host Clintonat their New York City home for a fundraiser on Wednesday.
CAP donor Elizabeth Bagley hosted Clinton last month for another fundraising event in Washington, D.C. Bagley and her husband have given as much as $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In addition to supporting the Clintons’ political prospects, Schweizer says that donations to the foundation can be a means to ingratiate oneself with the powerful family in the hope of securing access to their inner circle.
“People look for ways to influence those in power by throwing money in their direction,” Schweizer wrote. “Politicians are all too happy to vacuum up contributions from supporters and people who want access or something in return.”
The Clintons and their foundation vehemently deny any quid-pro-quos.
“The big question is whether taking such money constitutes a transaction,” Schweizer wrote. “The Clintons would undoubtedly argue that it does not. The evidence presented in this book suggests otherwise.”
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2016 Election, Clinton Foundation, Democratic Donors, Hillary Clinton,Tom Steyer. Bookmark the permalink.
AP
BY: Lachlan Markay
May 12, 2015 5:00 am
High-dollar donors to Hillary Clinton’s family foundation have hosted the majority of the Democratic presidential candidate’s early fundraisers, data compiled by political spending watchdogs reveal.
Twelve of the 21 Hillary for America fundraising events reported by the Sunlight Foundation have been or will be hosted by donors to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to Sunlight’s Political Party Time website, which tracks fundraising events.
The foundation donors hosting fundraisers include some of the largest supporters of Clinton’s past political efforts. Together, they have given as much as $90 million to the foundation, according to donor disclosures on its website.
The largest foundation donor to host one of the events is Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner. Clinton will attend a fundraiser at his home on May 20. Eychaner has donated more than $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton fundraisers’ donations to the foundation have come by way of personal contributions as well as through foundations and private companies that they own or operate.
Last week, Clinton attended fundraisers at the San Francisco homes of billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and Susie Tompkins Buell, founder of the Esprit clothing brand.
Steyer has personally donated to the foundation. Buell has done so in a personal capacity and through her own eponymous foundation and a donor-advised fund of a separate philanthropic group. The latter has contributed as much as $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Hedge fund manager Marc Lasry has personally donated as much as $250,000. His firm, Avenue Capital Management II, LP, has chipped in another $25,000 to $50,000.
The foundation lists donations in ranges, making it difficult to know exactly how much each donor has contributed. It also declines to say when specific contributions were made. More than 1,000 donors to the group remain anonymous.
The foundation has become a source of controversy in recent weeks following revelations that Clinton, as secretary of state, may have taken actions that benefitted foreign governments and corporations that donated to the foundation.
Details of those transactions were revealed in a new book, titled Clinton Cash, by Hoover Institute fellow Peter Schweizer. Clinton’s presidential campaign is going to extreme lengths to discredit Schweizer following the book’s release.
In the book, Schweizer suggests the foundation has served to advance the Clintons’ political aspirations since the end of Bill’s presidency.
“Perhaps the most important function of the foundation is to bolster Bill and Hillary’s reputations as global humanitarians by bringing relief and care to people all over the world,” Schweizer wrote.
“This reputation not only flatters the ex-president’s ego and benefits Hillary’s political career, but it also has real value both in terms of global influence and financial reward.”
Many of the foundation donors hosting Hillary for America fundraisers are long-time Clinton supporters. Haim and Cheryl Saban, whose foundation has given as much as $25 million to Clinton’s, backed her 2008 presidential bid, as did Buell, Lasry, and Eychaner.
Some Clinton Foundation donors have also contributed recently to other groups expected to back her candidacy, formally or informally.
The TomKat Charitable Trust, the foundation run by Steyer and his wife, is a major donor to the Center for American Progress, which was founded by Clinton campaign operative John Podesta and is expected to play a major role in crafting Clinton’s policy positions.
Steven Rattner and his wife Maureen White are also CAP donors. They have given as much as $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation personally and through their own foundation. They will host Clintonat their New York City home for a fundraiser on Wednesday.
CAP donor Elizabeth Bagley hosted Clinton last month for another fundraising event in Washington, D.C. Bagley and her husband have given as much as $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In addition to supporting the Clintons’ political prospects, Schweizer says that donations to the foundation can be a means to ingratiate oneself with the powerful family in the hope of securing access to their inner circle.
“People look for ways to influence those in power by throwing money in their direction,” Schweizer wrote. “Politicians are all too happy to vacuum up contributions from supporters and people who want access or something in return.”
The Clintons and their foundation vehemently deny any quid-pro-quos.
“The big question is whether taking such money constitutes a transaction,” Schweizer wrote. “The Clintons would undoubtedly argue that it does not. The evidence presented in this book suggests otherwise.”
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2016 Election, Clinton Foundation, Democratic Donors, Hillary Clinton,Tom Steyer. Bookmark the permalink.
[h=2]Fact Checker Slams ‘Tendentious’ Clinton Tax Rhetoric[/h]
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
May 11, 2015 4:53 pm
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton flubbed the facts last week when she claimed that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than large corporations, according to aWashington Post fact-check.
“In New York, which I know a little bit about because I represented it for eight years and I live there now, our undocumented workers in New York pay more in taxes than some of the biggest corporations in New York,” Clinton claimed at a North Las Vegas event.
The claim, sourced to a post on the website of Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), ignores crucial facts—such as the billions that alleged tax-dodging corporations actually pay—and compares tax bills for a group of individuals and corporate entities, which obscures crucial distinctions, theWashington Post’s Glenn Kessler found.
AP
BY: Lachlan Markay
May 11, 2015 4:53 pm
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton flubbed the facts last week when she claimed that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than large corporations, according to aWashington Post fact-check.
“In New York, which I know a little bit about because I represented it for eight years and I live there now, our undocumented workers in New York pay more in taxes than some of the biggest corporations in New York,” Clinton claimed at a North Las Vegas event.
The claim, sourced to a post on the website of Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), ignores crucial facts—such as the billions that alleged tax-dodging corporations actually pay—and compares tax bills for a group of individuals and corporate entities, which obscures crucial distinctions, theWashington Post’s Glenn Kessler found.
Even if Clinton incorrectly stated her talking point, this is a tendentious argument that is probably made even less relevant by 2014 tax data. (Note how the taxes paid by Verizon and Citicorp increased as the economy began to pick up.) If she is only talking about state and local income taxes, that’s just $186 million, according to the ITEP estimate for New York. Verizon and Citicorp still exceed that number on state and local taxes alone.
Undocumented immigrants obviously pay a lot of taxes, especially sales taxes. Clinton would have an even stronger case to highlight the tax contribution of illegal immigrants if she mentioned that the Social Security actuary estimated that illegal immigrants paid $12 billion in Social Security taxes in 2010 alone, with little hope of ever receiving benefits. (They used false or duplicative Social Security numbers.) That’s even more than the ITEP estimate for state/local income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes paid by illegal immigrants across the nation.
But comparing the taxes of hundreds of thousands of people to the tax bill of one corporation is a stretch and fairly misleading. Even the companies that pay little or no federal income taxes end up paying lots of other taxes. So it’s a nonsense comparison.
Kessler awarded Clinton “four Pinnochois,” the site’s most egregious factual designation.Undocumented immigrants obviously pay a lot of taxes, especially sales taxes. Clinton would have an even stronger case to highlight the tax contribution of illegal immigrants if she mentioned that the Social Security actuary estimated that illegal immigrants paid $12 billion in Social Security taxes in 2010 alone, with little hope of ever receiving benefits. (They used false or duplicative Social Security numbers.) That’s even more than the ITEP estimate for state/local income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes paid by illegal immigrants across the nation.
But comparing the taxes of hundreds of thousands of people to the tax bill of one corporation is a stretch and fairly misleading. Even the companies that pay little or no federal income taxes end up paying lots of other taxes. So it’s a nonsense comparison.
[h=1]NYT’S CONFESSORE: FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS USE CLINTON FOUNDATION TO SEEK INFLUENCE[/h]
by IAN HANCHETT11 May 201555
New York Times Political Reporter Nick Confessore predicted the Clinton Foundation will be an “endless source of headaches” because of the money they take from governments and corporations “seeking influence in American politics, and no doubt seeking influence with a potential future president” on Monday’s broadcast of “The Rundown With Jose Diaz-Balart” on MSNBC.
“I just feel like the Clinton Foundation, for all the good that it does, is going to be an endless source of headaches, because of the money they raise from overseas governments, from big corporations that are seeking influence in American politics, and no doubt seeking influence with a potential future president. And every time they take one of these big checks you have to wonder how it impacts the policy decision-making of her and her campaign” he stated.
Confessore added that the Clinton Foundation receives money from “governments that cannot give any money at all the conventional way in politics. they are banned from giving money to campaigns or super PACs, but they can plow a ton of money into that family philanthropy if they want to.”
by IAN HANCHETT11 May 201555
New York Times Political Reporter Nick Confessore predicted the Clinton Foundation will be an “endless source of headaches” because of the money they take from governments and corporations “seeking influence in American politics, and no doubt seeking influence with a potential future president” on Monday’s broadcast of “The Rundown With Jose Diaz-Balart” on MSNBC.
“I just feel like the Clinton Foundation, for all the good that it does, is going to be an endless source of headaches, because of the money they raise from overseas governments, from big corporations that are seeking influence in American politics, and no doubt seeking influence with a potential future president. And every time they take one of these big checks you have to wonder how it impacts the policy decision-making of her and her campaign” he stated.
Confessore added that the Clinton Foundation receives money from “governments that cannot give any money at all the conventional way in politics. they are banned from giving money to campaigns or super PACs, but they can plow a ton of money into that family philanthropy if they want to.”
[h=1]PROGRESSIVES RALLY TO ‘CLINTON CASH’ AS HILLARY TEAM COMPARES AUTHOR TO… JOSEPH MCCARTHY![/h]
The Associated Press
by ALEXANDER MARLOW11 May 2015390
[h=2]On Monday, Hillary Clinton insider and former Clinton Special Counsel Lanny Davis stunned C-SPAN Washington Journal viewers when he compared Clinton Cash author and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer to none other than Sen. Joseph McCarthy.[/h]“When I was raised in the 1950s, I’m showing my age, there was a gentleman named Senator Joseph McCarthy who held up a piece of paper: ‘I have here in my hand, 400 people working at the State Dept. who may be Communist.’ Headlines across the United States. The words ‘maybe’ are no different than Mr. Schweizer,” said Davis on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Lanny Davis on CSPAN, 5/11/15
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important][/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Davis then quickly tried to tamp down his explosive rhetoric by adding, “I give credit [to Schweizer] for never saying I have a single fact suggesting a speaking fee or a donation is connected to Sec. Clinton’s policy decisions,” a statement Schweizer has never made.
Whether Davis’s “Joe McCarthy” comments are part of a broader strategy by Hillary Clinton’s communications apparatus led by Brian Fallon presently remains unclear. Yet Davis’s bombastic rhetoric comes at an inopportune moment for the Hillary campaign, as committed and noted progressives have begun rallying around the Clinton Cash revelations, which have been confirmed and proven to be accurate numerous times by the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, National Journal, Wall Street Journal, and others.
Indeed, several noted progressives are now endorsing Clinton Cash:
Renowned progressive economist and Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs: “There is a lot here that is real,” said Sachs on MSNBC. “Whether it’s quid pro quos or not, who knows? But the amount of schmoozing involved and crossing lines and one person putting money in a foundation, and then Clinton getting unbelievable amounts for his speeches, and then contracts going one way or another, it’s not good.”
Speaking of the Clintons’ actions during the Haiti relief effort, Sachs added: “There were too many friends around, too many ad hoc plane flights in to do this deal or that deal, and there was not the systemic approach that one needs after a devastation. That’s the sad part of it.”
Sachs also tweeted: “The new book Clinton Cash is compelling reading on how Bill and Hilary have mixed personal wealth, power, and influence peddling.”
Progressive columnist Eleanor Clift: “It’s a mistake for the Clinton campaign to write off conservative author Peter Schweizer as a right-wing hack. It won’t work, and it’s not true. If he were as off-base as the campaign and its allies portray him, would a high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him?” wrote Clift on the Daily Beast.
Clift added, “And would Common Cause, the gold standard for good-government groups, which is currently chaired by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, be calling for an independent review that would be made public of all large donations to the Clinton Foundation?”
Harvard University Law School Professor and Lawrence Lessig in the Washington Post:
Clinton Cash, “the Clintons and their defenders insist, is not corruption because Schweizer has provided no smoking gun. He has offered ‘no evidence’ of a quid pro quo trade. Welcome to Wonderland: Were the alleged influencers the Koch brothers, with the same kind of pattern charged against them — their channeling support to Republican representatives, those representatives in turn acting in a way that reflected the desires of the Kochs — there would be no doubt that Democrats would rally to attack that influence as Exhibit No. 1 in the case against the corruption of Washington.”
Progressive Columnist Jonathan Chait writing in New York magazine: “The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles,” wrote Chait. “The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.”
Nomi Prins, Senior Fellow at the progressive Demos in Monday’s Forbes: “Schweizer lays out compelling patterns in which the timing of policy decisions or international deals relative to donations, transcends coincidence – or at least, merits closer inspection… The book runs 245 pages with an impressive 56 pages of endnotes. It might be tempting to dismiss Clinton Cash as a product of Schweizer’s own conservative leanings. Yet, his more recent works, Throw Them All Out and Extortion, have examined shenanigans on both sides of the aisle.”
Soros-Backed Democracy 21 President Fred Werthemer quoted in Sunday’s Washington Post:
“Fred Wertheimer, president of the reform group Democracy 21, said the couple should completely withdraw from the charity if Hillary Clinton wins: ‘Change the name of the foundation, and make a clean break.’”
The Hillary Clinton campaign has yet to disavow Lanny Davis’s McCarthy comparison.
[/COLOR]
by ALEXANDER MARLOW11 May 2015390
[h=2]On Monday, Hillary Clinton insider and former Clinton Special Counsel Lanny Davis stunned C-SPAN Washington Journal viewers when he compared Clinton Cash author and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer to none other than Sen. Joseph McCarthy.[/h]“When I was raised in the 1950s, I’m showing my age, there was a gentleman named Senator Joseph McCarthy who held up a piece of paper: ‘I have here in my hand, 400 people working at the State Dept. who may be Communist.’ Headlines across the United States. The words ‘maybe’ are no different than Mr. Schweizer,” said Davis on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important][/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Davis then quickly tried to tamp down his explosive rhetoric by adding, “I give credit [to Schweizer] for never saying I have a single fact suggesting a speaking fee or a donation is connected to Sec. Clinton’s policy decisions,” a statement Schweizer has never made.
Whether Davis’s “Joe McCarthy” comments are part of a broader strategy by Hillary Clinton’s communications apparatus led by Brian Fallon presently remains unclear. Yet Davis’s bombastic rhetoric comes at an inopportune moment for the Hillary campaign, as committed and noted progressives have begun rallying around the Clinton Cash revelations, which have been confirmed and proven to be accurate numerous times by the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, National Journal, Wall Street Journal, and others.
Indeed, several noted progressives are now endorsing Clinton Cash:
Renowned progressive economist and Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs: “There is a lot here that is real,” said Sachs on MSNBC. “Whether it’s quid pro quos or not, who knows? But the amount of schmoozing involved and crossing lines and one person putting money in a foundation, and then Clinton getting unbelievable amounts for his speeches, and then contracts going one way or another, it’s not good.”
Speaking of the Clintons’ actions during the Haiti relief effort, Sachs added: “There were too many friends around, too many ad hoc plane flights in to do this deal or that deal, and there was not the systemic approach that one needs after a devastation. That’s the sad part of it.”
Sachs also tweeted: “The new book Clinton Cash is compelling reading on how Bill and Hilary have mixed personal wealth, power, and influence peddling.”
Progressive columnist Eleanor Clift: “It’s a mistake for the Clinton campaign to write off conservative author Peter Schweizer as a right-wing hack. It won’t work, and it’s not true. If he were as off-base as the campaign and its allies portray him, would a high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him?” wrote Clift on the Daily Beast.
Clift added, “And would Common Cause, the gold standard for good-government groups, which is currently chaired by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, be calling for an independent review that would be made public of all large donations to the Clinton Foundation?”
Harvard University Law School Professor and Lawrence Lessig in the Washington Post:
Clinton Cash, “the Clintons and their defenders insist, is not corruption because Schweizer has provided no smoking gun. He has offered ‘no evidence’ of a quid pro quo trade. Welcome to Wonderland: Were the alleged influencers the Koch brothers, with the same kind of pattern charged against them — their channeling support to Republican representatives, those representatives in turn acting in a way that reflected the desires of the Kochs — there would be no doubt that Democrats would rally to attack that influence as Exhibit No. 1 in the case against the corruption of Washington.”
Progressive Columnist Jonathan Chait writing in New York magazine: “The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles,” wrote Chait. “The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.”
Nomi Prins, Senior Fellow at the progressive Demos in Monday’s Forbes: “Schweizer lays out compelling patterns in which the timing of policy decisions or international deals relative to donations, transcends coincidence – or at least, merits closer inspection… The book runs 245 pages with an impressive 56 pages of endnotes. It might be tempting to dismiss Clinton Cash as a product of Schweizer’s own conservative leanings. Yet, his more recent works, Throw Them All Out and Extortion, have examined shenanigans on both sides of the aisle.”
Soros-Backed Democracy 21 President Fred Werthemer quoted in Sunday’s Washington Post:
“Fred Wertheimer, president of the reform group Democracy 21, said the couple should completely withdraw from the charity if Hillary Clinton wins: ‘Change the name of the foundation, and make a clean break.’”
The Hillary Clinton campaign has yet to disavow Lanny Davis’s McCarthy comparison.
[/COLOR]
This goes back to 2007 and yes for the tards this is a dot lol:
[h=1]HILL’S BROTHER A DEADBEAT[/h]By Dareh Gregorian
December 20, 2007 | 10:00am
Owe, brother!
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s youngest sibling is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support to his politically connected ex, The Post has learned.
In a disclosure that could prove embarrassing for his sister, Anthony Rodham has stiffed his former wife, Nicole Boxer, out of $75,000 in child support, as well as $55,000 in alimony, a source close to the case said.
Including interest and various fees and expenses, the presidential candidate’s brother now owes Boxer – the daughter of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) – more than $158,000, the source said.
The revelation that Rodham is delinquent with his payments won’t be a welcome development for Hillary Clinton, coming as the too-close-to-call battle for the Democratic presidential nomination reaches a fevered pitch and with the first votes to be cast in Iowa in exactly two weeks.
Barbara Boxer has not endorsed a candidate in the race.
Nicole Boxer received judgments from a Washington judge ordering Rodham to pay up earlier this year, but the cash-strapped business consultant has yet to fork over the hefty sums.
“He has consistently been a deadbeat dad when it comes to paying child support and spousal support, despite the courts telling him over and over again that he must meet his obligations,” a source close to Nicole Boxer said.
Rodham’s lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo Carlberg, said she would “not comment on the veracity of any figures that are the subject of private and confidential settlement negotiations, as this is a personal, family matter and is under seal.” She did say her client “fully intends to honor the judgment.”
Nicole Boxer’s lawyer could not be reached for comment.
Rodham, 53, married Boxer in the White House Rose Garden in 1994, when his brother-in-law, Bill Clinton, was president.
The couple had a son, Zachary, two years later, but the political union came to an end in 2000.
Fights over child support soon followed – at one point in 2002, Nicole charged that her ex hadn’t paid anything in six months.
The latest support strife has been going on most of this past year, and Carlberg said her client has been trying to settle their differences in and out of court.
She said a Superior Court judge ruled against Rodham earlier this year.
“He strongly disagreed with the ruling, and so did I,” she said. “We appealed the decision, and Mr. Rodham did not prevail.”
That final ruling was in October.
Carlberg said she “sent a settlement letter to Ms. Boxer’s attorney a few weeks ago for structured payment. As of today, we have not received a reply.”
The Nicole Boxer source blasted Rodham’s settlement offers as “just another dodge from meeting his obligations to his former wife and son while he lives in his fancy Washington town house” with his new wife, whom he married in 2005.
A former insurance salesman, prison guard and private eye, Rodham has been a headache for the former and possibly future first family before.
He and his brother Hugh embarrassed the Clintons in 1999 with a politically perilous plan to import hazelnuts from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
He also became a figure in the “Pardongate” scandal, when it was revealed that he lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon two embezzlers.
Rodham made headlines again shortly after his split from Nicole, when he was attacked at his family cottage in the Berkshires by a man who claimed he saw Rodham having sex with his girlfriend.
Rodham later testified that he “might have” smoked pot with the woman.
[h=1]HILL’S BROTHER A DEADBEAT[/h]By Dareh Gregorian
December 20, 2007 | 10:00am
Owe, brother!
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s youngest sibling is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support to his politically connected ex, The Post has learned.
In a disclosure that could prove embarrassing for his sister, Anthony Rodham has stiffed his former wife, Nicole Boxer, out of $75,000 in child support, as well as $55,000 in alimony, a source close to the case said.
Including interest and various fees and expenses, the presidential candidate’s brother now owes Boxer – the daughter of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) – more than $158,000, the source said.
The revelation that Rodham is delinquent with his payments won’t be a welcome development for Hillary Clinton, coming as the too-close-to-call battle for the Democratic presidential nomination reaches a fevered pitch and with the first votes to be cast in Iowa in exactly two weeks.
Barbara Boxer has not endorsed a candidate in the race.
Nicole Boxer received judgments from a Washington judge ordering Rodham to pay up earlier this year, but the cash-strapped business consultant has yet to fork over the hefty sums.
“He has consistently been a deadbeat dad when it comes to paying child support and spousal support, despite the courts telling him over and over again that he must meet his obligations,” a source close to Nicole Boxer said.
Rodham’s lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo Carlberg, said she would “not comment on the veracity of any figures that are the subject of private and confidential settlement negotiations, as this is a personal, family matter and is under seal.” She did say her client “fully intends to honor the judgment.”
Nicole Boxer’s lawyer could not be reached for comment.
Rodham, 53, married Boxer in the White House Rose Garden in 1994, when his brother-in-law, Bill Clinton, was president.
The couple had a son, Zachary, two years later, but the political union came to an end in 2000.
Fights over child support soon followed – at one point in 2002, Nicole charged that her ex hadn’t paid anything in six months.
The latest support strife has been going on most of this past year, and Carlberg said her client has been trying to settle their differences in and out of court.
She said a Superior Court judge ruled against Rodham earlier this year.
“He strongly disagreed with the ruling, and so did I,” she said. “We appealed the decision, and Mr. Rodham did not prevail.”
That final ruling was in October.
Carlberg said she “sent a settlement letter to Ms. Boxer’s attorney a few weeks ago for structured payment. As of today, we have not received a reply.”
The Nicole Boxer source blasted Rodham’s settlement offers as “just another dodge from meeting his obligations to his former wife and son while he lives in his fancy Washington town house” with his new wife, whom he married in 2005.
A former insurance salesman, prison guard and private eye, Rodham has been a headache for the former and possibly future first family before.
He and his brother Hugh embarrassed the Clintons in 1999 with a politically perilous plan to import hazelnuts from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
He also became a figure in the “Pardongate” scandal, when it was revealed that he lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon two embezzlers.
Rodham made headlines again shortly after his split from Nicole, when he was attacked at his family cottage in the Berkshires by a man who claimed he saw Rodham having sex with his girlfriend.
Rodham later testified that he “might have” smoked pot with the woman.
Thought I would pass this on because the Clinton's always get a pass. Coinicidences or patterns, you be the judge:
To make research on, or accuse Clinton has too often showed to be a lethal business.
- Danny Casoloro, who investigated Clinton's involvement in stock frauds, was found dead in West Virginia.
- A lawyer from Washington, Paul Wilcher, who had made an appointment with Casoloro's former attorney, was found dead in his apartment.
- Prosecutor Charles Black wanted more money from governor Clinton to be able to continue the investigations regarding drug smuggling on Mena Airport. He got no money, but Black's mother was killed.
- The director for Clinton's Finance-campaign Committee, Ed Willke, was shot with a hail-gun.
- John Wilson, politician in Washington, threatened to reveal Clinton's dirty business. He was found swinging from a rope in 1993.
- Kathy Furguson, police in Arkansas and Clinton's bodyguard, said that Clinton was promiscuous. She was found dead with a gun in her hand. Her husband Danny denies all sex-scandals related to Clinton. He is still alive.
- Jon Parnel Walker, one of the investigators in the Whitewater affair, "fell" from a balcony in Virginia.
- C. Victor Raider II had an argument with Clinton. Raider and his son Montgomery died when their sport plane crashed.
- Mr. Friday, member of Raider's committee, and a known skilled pilot, died when his plane exploded.
- Dentist Ronald Rogers was about to meet a journalist and give information regarding Clinton when his plane crashed in clear weather.
- Luther Parks had gathered information regarding Clinton's sex habits. Clinton owed him $81.000 for security during his election campaign. He threatened Clinton to go public if he didn't get the money back. He was shot September 26th 1993.His son Gary said he had all the evidence at home and proof of Bill and Roger Clinton's drug abuse. The information was stolen shortly thereafter.
- Vincent Foster was a good friend of Clinton since childhood. His "suicide" occurred during the Whitewater investigation. The "suicide" couldn't have been such. He still had the gun in his hand when found, which is impossible after the reaction from the bullet. Also, he held the gun in his right hand, though he was left-handed! At the same time employees at "Rose Law Firm" started to destroy documents.
In Arkansas there is a law saying that autopsy is not necessary if the diseased through a court-order can be classified to have committed suicide. This law was written by Bill Clinton. Almost every death around his person has been classified as suicide.
The crimes just don't stop! During the Whitewater investigations Patsy Thomason, Clinton's companion, searched through Foster's office the same night Foster died(!). It was justified under the means of "national security". Patsy Thomason, by the way, is in the police reports for drug related crimes, and it was she who stopped the drug tests on employees in the White House.
Gary Johnson, a lawyer, wanted to reveal the money laundering and corruption in Clinton's business ADFA. Johnson was a neighbor of Gennifer Flowers, one of the ladies Clinton has denied having a sexual relationship with. Johnson had a camera outside his house, and it caught Clinton on his way into Flower's apartment. He had his own key. Johnson had it on film and could prove that Clinton lied. He was then attacked in his home and badly wounded. The intruders also stole the film.
But why hasn't Clinton been thoroughly investigated and put to trial when so many people knew about the crimes? Larry Nichols might have the answer:
Many people wonder how Bill Clinton could lead a whole state in the size of Arkansas with the ultimate power he expressed. It's not that hard. After 12 years, after having "made friends" with the rich, Clinton was in charge of the constitutional laws, the judges, the lawyers and the banks.
As far as coincidences go that is an awful lot to swallow up above. Conspiracy theorist, no, I am just someone who sees a pattern that is very disturbing and which have not been properly addressed. The Foundation is the pinnacle for the Clintons and they are harvesting the seeds they have planted over the years. Truth or fiction you be the judge. When dots are random they are hard to connect but when you have a pattern it should at least make one wonder. Innocent until proven guilty prevails of course but the dots that needed to be connected were erased in very mysterious ways.
No, you're a real life fucking loon. No one would deny that, lol. The Clinton's are active around the globe in dealing with foreign governments to push their social agenda like education, hospitals, etc. It's really not that big of a conspiracy. Your Koch bros boys and Karl Rove don't even focus on philanthropies, they just straight up try to buy elections.
So you think Ken Starr, who investigated Vince Foster's death, was on board to help the Clinton's cover up a murder when he ruled Foster's death a suicide?
Do you also believe that the NTSB was in on the cover up of Raider's "murder" when they ruled his plane crash was caused by pilot error in low visibility conidtions? Was the NTSB also in on the cover up of Rogers "murder" when they found nothing suspicious about his plane crash?
In some of these examples above you'd be talking about quite a cover up with numerous people involved. Highly unlikely they'd all stay quiet.
