[h=2]Soros, Top Clinton Lawyer Lose Lawsuit Against Virginia’s Voter ID Law[/h]Millions have gone into the effort to attack voter identification laws in numerous states
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Joe Schoffstall
May 20, 2016 12:20 pm
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer lost a challenge against Virginia’s voter identification laws that was fueled by money from liberal billionaire George Soros.
The lawsuit, filed early last year on behalf of the Democratic Party of Virginia, sought to end Virginia’s voter identification law, known as SB 1256. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court Thursday after a lengthy trial that saw numerous witnesses testify, dealing a blow to an organized effort by the left to take on voter ID laws in numerous states leading up to the 2016 election.
The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law throughout the case by alleging it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and said that it has an adverse impact on minority groups.
They also argued that the law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by putting an undue burden on the right to vote of minorities and disfavored the groups because of their political views. The plaintiffs contended that the law was specifically put into place to suppress the votes of African-Americans, Latinos, and young people.
The federal court dismissed the lawsuit on all counts.
J. Christian Adams, president of the election integrity group the Public Interest Legal Foundation, filed a motion to assist the state against the suit.
“We’re happy that the court dismissed this attack on Virginia’s common sense Voter ID law,” said Adams. “It’s a shame civil rights groups are wasting so much donor money in failed efforts to block a law most people like and that stops nobody from voting.”
The Virginia voter ID challenge was part of a larger effort to attack voter identification laws across multiple states bankrolled by millions from George Soros.
Soros got wind of the potential challenges and became involved in January 2014, vowing to put at least $5 million in funding the effort.
“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” said Soros.
The Virginia voter ID campaign was led by Marc Elias, a partner at the D.C.-based law firm Perkins Coie. Elias is the top lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s campaign but is acting independently and in his capacity as an attorney at Perkins Coie on the challenges.
Elias filed similar lawsuits in Ohio and Wisconsin last year.
He brought the Ohio lawsuit forward on behalf of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, who later found themselves under investigation by state authorities for fraudulent voter registrations. After this development, the Ohio Democratic Party and other local party organizations replaced the group on the lawsuit, and a source close to Elias contended he was no longer involved with the group.
A federal judge dismissed a portion of the Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the state’s voter identification requirements in December 2015.
Elias did not return a request for comment on the Virginia dismissal by press time.
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Joe Schoffstall
May 20, 2016 12:20 pm
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer lost a challenge against Virginia’s voter identification laws that was fueled by money from liberal billionaire George Soros.
The lawsuit, filed early last year on behalf of the Democratic Party of Virginia, sought to end Virginia’s voter identification law, known as SB 1256. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court Thursday after a lengthy trial that saw numerous witnesses testify, dealing a blow to an organized effort by the left to take on voter ID laws in numerous states leading up to the 2016 election.
The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law throughout the case by alleging it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and said that it has an adverse impact on minority groups.
They also argued that the law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by putting an undue burden on the right to vote of minorities and disfavored the groups because of their political views. The plaintiffs contended that the law was specifically put into place to suppress the votes of African-Americans, Latinos, and young people.
The federal court dismissed the lawsuit on all counts.
J. Christian Adams, president of the election integrity group the Public Interest Legal Foundation, filed a motion to assist the state against the suit.
“We’re happy that the court dismissed this attack on Virginia’s common sense Voter ID law,” said Adams. “It’s a shame civil rights groups are wasting so much donor money in failed efforts to block a law most people like and that stops nobody from voting.”
The Virginia voter ID challenge was part of a larger effort to attack voter identification laws across multiple states bankrolled by millions from George Soros.
Soros got wind of the potential challenges and became involved in January 2014, vowing to put at least $5 million in funding the effort.
“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” said Soros.
The Virginia voter ID campaign was led by Marc Elias, a partner at the D.C.-based law firm Perkins Coie. Elias is the top lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s campaign but is acting independently and in his capacity as an attorney at Perkins Coie on the challenges.
Elias filed similar lawsuits in Ohio and Wisconsin last year.
He brought the Ohio lawsuit forward on behalf of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, who later found themselves under investigation by state authorities for fraudulent voter registrations. After this development, the Ohio Democratic Party and other local party organizations replaced the group on the lawsuit, and a source close to Elias contended he was no longer involved with the group.
A federal judge dismissed a portion of the Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the state’s voter identification requirements in December 2015.
Elias did not return a request for comment on the Virginia dismissal by press time.
[h=1]Daily Mail: ‘Clinton Cash’ a ‘Blistering Indictment’ of How the Clintons Got Rich from Corruption[/h]
Michael Loccisano/Getty Images
by BREITBART NEWS20 May 20161,135
[h=2]Nikki Schwab of the Daily Mail reviews the new documentary film “Clinton Cash,” based on Peter Schweizer’s bestselling bookof the same name. The film, Schwab writes, “links money given to Bill Clinton for paid speeches to decisions Hillary Clinton made at State,” thus showing that “all those contributions to the Clinton Foundation weren’t pure altruism,” but rather influence-peddling to get the Clintons “to overlook human rights violations by unsavory world leaders.”[/h]Audiences in Cannes are getting a taste of the searing new documentary ‘Clinton Cash,’ which offers a harsh indictment of the paid speeches, personal favors, and personal enrichment that have accompanied Bill and Hillary Clinton through their decades in politics.
And if the movie-maker’s wishes come true, so will Americans – the night before Clinton is formally named her party’s White House candidate
The hour-long movie attempts to follow the money that has flowed toward Bill and Hillary Clinton since the former president left the White House, and suggests that much of it came from a cast of companies and countries seeking favorable treatment from the powerful pair.
Among the more damaging revelations in the film: out of 13 speeches ex-president Bill Clinton gave that earned more than $500,000 on the speaking circuit, 11 of them were during his wife’s reign as secretary of state.
The film also probes the $1.4 million Bill Clinton got from a Nigerian newspaper to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 212, notwithstanding Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan’s human rights record.
It also also lays out unsavory dealings in South Sudan, the Democratic of the Congo, and Haiti, as it constructs at thesis that regimes and companies ingratiated themselves with the Clintons through charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation and by offering hefty speaking fees to the Clintons.
Then it looks at who among the Clintons’ employers had something to gain, like TD Bank, a company that backed the Keystone XL pipeline and payed $2 million for Bill Clinton speeches.
The film doesn’t present hard evidence of an illegal quid pro quo, but it lays out a torrent of information for viewers to consider, and throws in images of blood-stained cash to drive the point home.
As if on cue, Hillary Clinton released a personal financial disclosure form this week that reveals she got $5 million in royalties from her 2014 book and $1.5 million in speaking fees in 2015 as she was gearing up to run for president.
Based on the book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer, the film connects the dots between donations to the Clinton Foundation or given to the ex-president for paid speeches and decisions Hillary Clinton made while being secretary of state.
‘Cronyism and self-enrichment are a bipartisan affair, and Hillary and Bill Clinton have perfected them on a global scale,’ Schweizer says in the film.
Read the rest here.
954
12
by BREITBART NEWS20 May 20161,135
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Nikki Schwab of the Daily Mail reviews the new documentary film “Clinton Cash,” based on Peter Schweizer’s bestselling bookof the same name. The film, Schwab writes, “links money given to Bill Clinton for paid speeches to decisions Hillary Clinton made at State,” thus showing that “all those contributions to the Clinton Foundation weren’t pure altruism,” but rather influence-peddling to get the Clintons “to overlook human rights violations by unsavory world leaders.”[/h]Audiences in Cannes are getting a taste of the searing new documentary ‘Clinton Cash,’ which offers a harsh indictment of the paid speeches, personal favors, and personal enrichment that have accompanied Bill and Hillary Clinton through their decades in politics.
And if the movie-maker’s wishes come true, so will Americans – the night before Clinton is formally named her party’s White House candidate
The hour-long movie attempts to follow the money that has flowed toward Bill and Hillary Clinton since the former president left the White House, and suggests that much of it came from a cast of companies and countries seeking favorable treatment from the powerful pair.
Among the more damaging revelations in the film: out of 13 speeches ex-president Bill Clinton gave that earned more than $500,000 on the speaking circuit, 11 of them were during his wife’s reign as secretary of state.
The film also probes the $1.4 million Bill Clinton got from a Nigerian newspaper to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 212, notwithstanding Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan’s human rights record.
It also also lays out unsavory dealings in South Sudan, the Democratic of the Congo, and Haiti, as it constructs at thesis that regimes and companies ingratiated themselves with the Clintons through charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation and by offering hefty speaking fees to the Clintons.
Then it looks at who among the Clintons’ employers had something to gain, like TD Bank, a company that backed the Keystone XL pipeline and payed $2 million for Bill Clinton speeches.
The film doesn’t present hard evidence of an illegal quid pro quo, but it lays out a torrent of information for viewers to consider, and throws in images of blood-stained cash to drive the point home.
As if on cue, Hillary Clinton released a personal financial disclosure form this week that reveals she got $5 million in royalties from her 2014 book and $1.5 million in speaking fees in 2015 as she was gearing up to run for president.
Based on the book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer, the film connects the dots between donations to the Clinton Foundation or given to the ex-president for paid speeches and decisions Hillary Clinton made while being secretary of state.
‘Cronyism and self-enrichment are a bipartisan affair, and Hillary and Bill Clinton have perfected them on a global scale,’ Schweizer says in the film.
Read the rest here.
[h=1]Will Obama Indict Clinton to Save his Party?[/h][h=2][/h]By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | May 20th, 2016 at 04:00 AM | 51
RESIZE: AAA
Obama must be watching the unfolding 2016 election with a growing sense of horror. The Democrats got the greatest gift imaginable when Donald Trump got the Republican nomination, but Hillary Clinton has already all but frittered away the greatest natural advantage any politician could possibly have – being a woman running against Donald Trump. Clinton’s inept, bungling campaign has alienated huge portions of the blue collar Democrat voting base and has made a race that should be a cakewalk into one that is actually competitive.
One thing that Barack Obama has shown during his seven and a half years in office is that he really is an ideologue. Unlike Clinton, he cares deeply about actually advancing progressive causes, and he is nearly obsessed with his legacy – much of which will be built on unilateral action that could easily be undone by a hostile successor (if we suppose that Trump would actually care to undo any of it). On the other hand, if a Democrat succeeds him, he knows that many of these programs will become much more difficult to undo.
At this point, an indictment of Clinton might well seem like an escape hatch for President Obama. He won’t order it himself of course, but he might well tell Lynch that if the FBI asks for one against Clinton, she should go ahead and issue the indictment. Then he can go out and sorrowfully tell Clinton that he’s so sorry, the whole thing is out of his hands, she should really consider stepping aside for Bernie before things get out of hand.
Maybe it seems farfetched right now, but Obama still has some time to make this decision. If Clinton continues to run essentially even with Trump in national polls as the convention approaches, or if she falls behind Trump in more than just the occasional problematic poll, this option is going to start looking more and more attractive to him. He knows good and well that Hillary’s delegate lead cannot be overcome without the nearly unanimous reversal of Democrat superdelegates at this point, and maybe not then.
But an indictment from a Democrat administration, at this point of the election, just might send the signal the superdelegates need to abandon Hillary en masse, or for the convention to change the rules regarding a candidate under indictment. Staring down the possibility of a Trump administration, that’s a panic button the Democrats might well push
RESIZE: AAA
- Share on Facebook159
- https://plus.google.com/share?url=h...6/05/20/will-obama-indict-clinton-save-party/
- 159 SHARES
One thing that Barack Obama has shown during his seven and a half years in office is that he really is an ideologue. Unlike Clinton, he cares deeply about actually advancing progressive causes, and he is nearly obsessed with his legacy – much of which will be built on unilateral action that could easily be undone by a hostile successor (if we suppose that Trump would actually care to undo any of it). On the other hand, if a Democrat succeeds him, he knows that many of these programs will become much more difficult to undo.
His alliance with Clinton has always been one of political convenience rather than one of genuine friendship, if the Democrat insiders who constantly gab to the media are to be believed. I don’t believe for a moment that Obama has any personal investment in Hillary Clinton becoming President – he’d personally be just as happy with Bernie if not more so.
Moreover, his own Justice Department is allegedly threatening open mutiny if action is not taken against Clinton after the probe into her private email server is completed. If Clinton were in a strong position for the general election, no doubt Obama would order Lynch to softpedal any action that lands on Clinton herself, no matter what the facts say. However, Obama can read the polls as well as anyone, and he knows that Sanders would walk all over Donald Trump, whereas Clinton might well find herself in a dogfight.At this point, an indictment of Clinton might well seem like an escape hatch for President Obama. He won’t order it himself of course, but he might well tell Lynch that if the FBI asks for one against Clinton, she should go ahead and issue the indictment. Then he can go out and sorrowfully tell Clinton that he’s so sorry, the whole thing is out of his hands, she should really consider stepping aside for Bernie before things get out of hand.
Maybe it seems farfetched right now, but Obama still has some time to make this decision. If Clinton continues to run essentially even with Trump in national polls as the convention approaches, or if she falls behind Trump in more than just the occasional problematic poll, this option is going to start looking more and more attractive to him. He knows good and well that Hillary’s delegate lead cannot be overcome without the nearly unanimous reversal of Democrat superdelegates at this point, and maybe not then.
But an indictment from a Democrat administration, at this point of the election, just might send the signal the superdelegates need to abandon Hillary en masse, or for the convention to change the rules regarding a candidate under indictment. Staring down the possibility of a Trump administration, that’s a panic button the Democrats might well push
We are talking about someone who does not have a driver’s license or a license to carry a gun. An elitist all the way. She is chauffeured everywhere she goes and has been for decades. She is always accompanied by security guards who carry guns. If she believes in changing the second amendment then why not pass a law saying security guards cannot carry guns. Right LOL.
She has always been above the law and the most recent investigation into her server is not the first and surely not the last.
When you have a history of lying how can people believe anything you say. Defending Bill and demeaning women he has brought into his life is absurd. He gets a pass and they do not. That is the Hillary way and she is so out of touch with the real world it is not even funny
Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on Fire: 27 Hillary Fibs, Obfuscations, and Lies
49290
136
by BEN SHAPIRO14 Oct 20159,033
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday night’s debate featured a master class on lying from the lying liar who lies about her lies, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
She spoke for approximately 24 minutes, and aside from her opening statement – “I’m Hillary Clinton” – virtually every word that exited her mouth was untrue. But because Hillary appeared to be lady with mild socialist depression in a full-blown socialist insane asylum, nobody laid a glove on her.
Thus it is left to us to debunk her various obfuscations and untruths. Here we go.
“I have spent a very long time – my entire adult life – looking for ways…to find the ways for each child to live up to his or her God-given potential.” Well, unless you’re an unborn child. Then, get ready for a trip down the sink.
“Yes, finally, fathers will be able to say to their daughters, you, too, can grow up to be president.” Technically, you’ll have to marry a president first, however.
“Actually, I have been very consistent.” Anderson Cooper asked Hillary about her shifting positions on issues ranging from the Iraq war to same-sex marriage to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She then dropped that whopper. Hillary has been one of the least consistent major party candidates in American history. She then dropped a series of lies about her own positional changes. And then she finally concluded that she had a “range of views, but they are rooted in my values and my experience.” Those values are “becoming president” and her experience is “reading the polls.”
“I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards.” This is plainly untrue. Here’s what she said in 2012 about the TPP: “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.” She didn’t hope it would be the gold standard. It was the gold standard. Naturally, PolitiFact labeled this statement “half-true.” That means it’s a huge, glaring lie.
“I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done…how to find common ground, and I have proved that in every position that I’ve had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly.” Nope. As Senator from New York, Hillary accomplished virtually nothing. Her name was attached to exactly zero legislation. Her only major impact on policy came in the form of Hillarycare, which drove Republicans to massive electoral victory in 1994.
“When I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started…” The media drooled over the exchange between Hillary and Bernie over capitalism. But there is no distinction between the economic philosophy of Bernie Sanders and that of Hillary Clinton. She said she wanted to use government to force companies to “share profits with the workers” – a line straight from the Marxist playbook. She said she wanted the wealthy to “pay their fair share” – which meant everything. She said she wanted paid family leave, universal college tuition availability, and a bevy of other free goodies. As I tweeted before the debate, her competition with Bernie Sanders looked like this:
Hillary: Free health care! Sanders: Free college! Hillary: Free abortions! Sanders: Free EVERYTHING! Hillary: FREE EVERYTHING INFINITY!
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 13, 2015
“It was pretty straightforward to me that [Sanders] was going to give immunity to the only industry in America. Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers.” There is no special immunity for gun manufacturers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 was designed to prevent ultra-leftist jurisdictions from twisting tort law to make gun manufacturers liable for “public nuisance” in the way that manufacturers are liable for their pollution. The law does not stop lawsuits against manufacturers or dealers from being sued if they knowingly sell a product to a criminal. They can still be sued for design flaws, or negligence.— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 13, 2015
“Well first of all, we got a lot of business done with the Russians when Medvedev was the president, and not Putin….There’s no doubt that when Putin came back in and said he was going to be President, that did change the relationship.” Nonsense. Putin was always the leader of Russia, even when Medvedev was his puppet. Hillary knew Putin ran the country when Medvedev was president; Medvedev, for example, was president when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Hillary handed the Russians a reset button anyway. Hillary also advocated for taking on Bashar Assad – the same man she once called a “reformer.”
“I think while you’re talking about the tough decision that President Obama had to make about Osama bin Laden, where I was one of his few advisers, or putting together that coalition to impose sanctions on Iran…” Glomming onto the kill of Osama Bin Laden in order to explain her vote for the Iraq war was simply nonsensical. But the idea that she “put together the coalition to impose sanctions on Iran” is simply untrue. International sanctions against Iran have been on the books for decades. And Hillary was integrally involved in negotiating the end of those sanctions, as well as letting Iran enrich uranium.
“We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands, as I’m sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people… Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this.” Hillary reportedly manufactured the Libyan genocide story out of wholecloth, and overrode US intelligence in order to push that narrative. If Libya was “smart power at its best,” it would be incredible to find out what “smart power at its worst” would be (well, other than Syria, Ukraine, Iran…). Libya became a haven for terrorists because we deposed a dictator who posed no threat to us. The notion that Iraq was a disaster area of American foreign policy but Libya is a great success story is patently insane. Hillary’s lies about Libya didn’t end there.
“I’ll get to that.” Hillary said this with regard to Benghazi. She never did, of course. Her response mirrored her response in Benghazi, by the way: “I’ll get back to that,” she said to our Libyan staff, then proceeded to do nothing.
“The Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy.” It would be important to remember that the Libyan government is currently operating with no control of the country, and is effectively a government-in-exile.
“I think it has to be continued threat from the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands. I know the terrorists are constantly seeking it, and that’s why we have to stay vigilant, but also united around the world to prevent that.” Hillary said the spread of nuclear weapons represented the chief threat to the United States. She also negotiated the Iran nuclear deal. The statement that people around the world are united to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is a plain lie, given the acceptance of the Iran deal, which makes Iranian nuclear development inevitable.
“Well, I’ve taken responsibility for it. I did say it was a mistake. What I did was allowed by the State Department, but it wasn’t the best choice. And I have been as transparent as I know to be, turning over 55,000 pages of my e-mails, asking that they be made public. And you’re right. I am going to be testifying. I’ve been asking to testify for some time and to do it in public, which was not originally agreed to.” Lies, lies, and more lies. She did not take responsibility for her email scandal any more than she took responsibility for Benghazi: she said she “took responsibility” but never admitted to having done anything wrong. Her email scheme was not allowed by federal law, but she was the head of the State Department and thus waived rules for herself. She may have been as transparent as she knows how to be, but that transparency involved setting up a private server, loading it with classified information, and then deleting some 30,000 emails. She only asked to testify after Congress demanded she testify. Fortunately, none of this mattered, since Bernie Sanders intervened to hand her his testicles in a jar by saying nobody cared about her emails.
“I want to make sure every single person in this country has the same opportunities that he and I have had, to make the most of their God-given potential and to have the chances that they should have in America for a good education, good job training, and then good jobs.” Not everyone can marry the president of the United States.
“This inequality challenge we face, we have faced it at other points. It’s absolutely right. It hasn’t been this bad since the 1920s. But if you look at the Republicans versus the Democrats when it comes to economic policy, there is no comparison. The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House and that’s why we need to have a Democrat in the White House in January 2017.” If Democrats are so great at economics, why is inequality as bad as it has been in a century? And saying that Democratic presidents preside over good economies seems to neglect the fact that Bill Clinton, for example, presided over a Republican Congress.
“We have to deal with the problem that the banks are still too big to fail. We can never let the American taxpayer and middle class families ever have to bail out the kind of speculative behavior that we saw.” In this debate, Hillary Clinton also backed Dodd-Frank, which legally enshrines too big to fail. Bailouts are now mandated by federal law, thanks to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. And Democratic policyloves bailouts – they are huge fans of crony capitalism, endless bailouts through stimulus packages and taxpayer giveaways.
“I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 — before the big crash that we had — and I basically said, ‘Cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.’” This is idiocy. Hillary did do this, but saying that Wall Street was engaging in risky behavior, and that therefore they should have give more loans to risky home buyers and stop foreclosing on bad buyers – well, that’s just dumb. Those practices led to the crisis in the first place.
“I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.” True, actually. But brutally stupid nonetheless. She also said she would not take a position on pot legalization. No shock there.
“I have been on the forefront of dealing with climate change, starting in 2009, when President Obama and I crashed (ph) a meeting with the Chinese and got them to sign up to the first international agreement to combat climate change that they’d ever joined.” The Copenhagen Summit in 2009 was an international fiasco for the United States. As Michael Bastasch notes, “the summit quickly fell apart and no legally-binding agreement was signed. The summit was widely regarded as a failure, and even Obama was disappointed in the results.” The United States ended up signing onto a non-binding agreement that pledged $100 billion in funding to impoverished countries.
“My plan would enable anyone to go to a public college or university tuition free.” College is not free. Somebody pays for it. Who? As always, the wealthy.
“I think that it was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed. And it is true that it did require that there be a process. What happened, however, is that the Bush administration began to chip away at that process. And I began to speak out about their use of warrantless surveillance and the other behavior that they engaged in.” Hillary Clinton voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006. And Hillary’s supposed leadership against Bush-era abuses of the Patriot Act didn’t stop President Obama from expanding the use of surveillance far beyond what Bush ever did.
“Well, I can’t think of anything more of an outsider than electing the first woman president, but I’m not just running because I would be the first woman president….Well, I would not ask anyone to vote for me based on my last name.” False and false.
“California has had a paid leave program for a number of years….And it has not had the ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have.”California uses employee payroll taxes to finance paid family leave. That means all the costs of the program are hidden, rather than explicit. Businesses leave California and employment declines because of its high tax rates. Businesses hire fewer women if forced to pay higher taxes in order to do so.
“They don’t mind having big government to interfere with a woman’s right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood. They’re fine with big government when it comes to that. I’m sick of it.” Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood. That’s not big government. That’s small government. Further, it’s not “big government” to protect human life through force of law any more than it is “big government” to have murder laws on the books.
“I know we can afford it, because we’re going to make the wealthy pay for it. That is the way to get it done.” This myth, repeated ad nauseum by Democrats, is truly reprehensible. Rich people cannot pay for all the utopian programs proposed by the left. As John Stossel points out, “If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion.” Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton worshipped at the altar of Denmark last night, but Denmark has lower corporate tax rates than the United States, and far higher taxes on the middle class. You pay a 200 percent tax on cars in Denmark — everyone. Socialism isn’t built on the backs of the rich. It’s built on the backs of everyone who earns, and that includes the middle class.
“Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.” The Iranians are not Hillary’s enemies. They love her.
Hillary’s a liar. But Democrats don’t care, because liars prosper in a world where hard work and honesty are punished in the name of equality and the Great Socialist Utopia.
49290
136
[h=2]A Top Ten List of Hillary’s Lies, Scams, Hustles and Deceitfulness[/h]BY EDWARD KLEIN/ DECEMBER 23, 2015
Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton “lies like crazy.”
He’s in good company.
Nearly 20 years ago, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist William Safire wrote: “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that [Hillary Clinton] is a congenital liar.”
Here, as a refresher course for those with short memories, is a Top Ten List of Hillary’s Lies, Scams, Hustles and Deceitfulness.
1. “I remember landing [in Bosnia] under sniper fire,” Hillary boasted. In fact, a video of the trip shows Hillary and her daughter Chelsea being greeted at the peaceful airport in Tuzla, Bosnia, by a young girl with flowers.
2. Hillary complained that she and her husband left the White House “dead broke.” In fact, they left with contracts for lecture and speeches worth between $20 and $30 million.
3. As a junior senator, Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But when the war became unpopular, she flip-flopped and opposed the surge in Iraq. Later she admitted she did so purely out of political expediency—she wanted to gain advantage over Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primary.
4. When Hillary was running for the 2008 Democrat nomination, she told the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph, a leading New Hampshire newspaper, that she favored a plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. She later claimed she never said that.
5. Hillary approved an unethical—and probably illegal—sweetheart deal for her closest aide Huma Abedin. It allowed Huma to receive a $135,000-a-year- salary from the State Department, while she was being paid as a member of the board of the Clinton Foundation, and worked as a $335,00o-a-year outside consultant to a firm founded by a Bill Clinton crony named Doug Band.
6. Hillary refused to designate the notorious al Qaeda-linked Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram as a terrorist organization because a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who had business interests in Nigeria, asked her not to.
7. Hillary voted to approve the sale of 20 percent of the uranium production capacity in the United States to a Russian company.
8. Hillary intervened to fix a problem that UBS, a giant of the Swiss banking industry, was having with the IRS. She did so because UBS had donated $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for a series of speeches.
9. Hillary lied about Benghazi. She e-mailed her daughter Chelsea that the attack on the consulate was caused by al-Qaeda elements, but she told the families of the four dead Americans and the American people that it was caused by a video.
10. Hillary lied numerous times about her e-mails.
a) She said it wasn’t convenient to carry two phones, so she carried only one with her private e-mail account. Not true. She had multiple electronic devices, including another BlackBerry and an iPad. And not incidentally, her aide Huma Abedin, not Hillary, carried the phone.
b) She said she turned over her emails because of a routine State Department request. Not true. The e-mails were subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee.
c) She said she turned over all her work-related e-mails. Not true. Missing from the 30,000 e-mails were contacts with Sidney Blumenthal, Tony Blair, and CIA director David Petraeus, among others.
d) She said that among the 33,000 “private” e-mails that she deleted were communications with her husband. Not true. Bill Clinton said that he had sent a grand total of two e-mails in his life.
e) She said she did not e-mail any classified material. Not true. The Inspector General of the intelligence community found that Hillary received and sent many classified e-mails, including those relating to the North Korean nuclear program.
f) In a letter to Representative Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the House Select Committee investigating the deadly terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Hillary said that the only private e-mail address she ever used while secretary of state was hdr22@clintonemail.com. Not true. In fact, she had a second e-mail address, HRod17@clintonemail.com, and didn’t tell Gowdy about it.
g) She kept her second e-mail address secret because she used it in secret exchanges with Sidney Blumenthal, who was acting as her back channel on Libya.
Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton “lies like crazy.”
He’s in good company.
Nearly 20 years ago, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist William Safire wrote: “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that [Hillary Clinton] is a congenital liar.”
Here, as a refresher course for those with short memories, is a Top Ten List of Hillary’s Lies, Scams, Hustles and Deceitfulness.
1. “I remember landing [in Bosnia] under sniper fire,” Hillary boasted. In fact, a video of the trip shows Hillary and her daughter Chelsea being greeted at the peaceful airport in Tuzla, Bosnia, by a young girl with flowers.
2. Hillary complained that she and her husband left the White House “dead broke.” In fact, they left with contracts for lecture and speeches worth between $20 and $30 million.
3. As a junior senator, Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But when the war became unpopular, she flip-flopped and opposed the surge in Iraq. Later she admitted she did so purely out of political expediency—she wanted to gain advantage over Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primary.
4. When Hillary was running for the 2008 Democrat nomination, she told the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph, a leading New Hampshire newspaper, that she favored a plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. She later claimed she never said that.
5. Hillary approved an unethical—and probably illegal—sweetheart deal for her closest aide Huma Abedin. It allowed Huma to receive a $135,000-a-year- salary from the State Department, while she was being paid as a member of the board of the Clinton Foundation, and worked as a $335,00o-a-year outside consultant to a firm founded by a Bill Clinton crony named Doug Band.
6. Hillary refused to designate the notorious al Qaeda-linked Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram as a terrorist organization because a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who had business interests in Nigeria, asked her not to.
7. Hillary voted to approve the sale of 20 percent of the uranium production capacity in the United States to a Russian company.
8. Hillary intervened to fix a problem that UBS, a giant of the Swiss banking industry, was having with the IRS. She did so because UBS had donated $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for a series of speeches.
9. Hillary lied about Benghazi. She e-mailed her daughter Chelsea that the attack on the consulate was caused by al-Qaeda elements, but she told the families of the four dead Americans and the American people that it was caused by a video.
10. Hillary lied numerous times about her e-mails.
a) She said it wasn’t convenient to carry two phones, so she carried only one with her private e-mail account. Not true. She had multiple electronic devices, including another BlackBerry and an iPad. And not incidentally, her aide Huma Abedin, not Hillary, carried the phone.
b) She said she turned over her emails because of a routine State Department request. Not true. The e-mails were subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee.
c) She said she turned over all her work-related e-mails. Not true. Missing from the 30,000 e-mails were contacts with Sidney Blumenthal, Tony Blair, and CIA director David Petraeus, among others.
d) She said that among the 33,000 “private” e-mails that she deleted were communications with her husband. Not true. Bill Clinton said that he had sent a grand total of two e-mails in his life.
e) She said she did not e-mail any classified material. Not true. The Inspector General of the intelligence community found that Hillary received and sent many classified e-mails, including those relating to the North Korean nuclear program.
f) In a letter to Representative Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the House Select Committee investigating the deadly terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Hillary said that the only private e-mail address she ever used while secretary of state was hdr22@clintonemail.com. Not true. In fact, she had a second e-mail address, HRod17@clintonemail.com, and didn’t tell Gowdy about it.
g) She kept her second e-mail address secret because she used it in secret exchanges with Sidney Blumenthal, who was acting as her back channel on Libya.
