POLITICS
MAY 8, 2016WALL STREET WHISTLEBLOWER CALLS CLINTON FOUNDATION ‘CHARITY FRAUD’
DIANA PRICE
A Wall Street whistleblower has found a new target for investigation of financial irregularities, and it’s bad news for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Financial advisor Charles Ortel has taken on the Clinton Foundation and says that based on the records he’s found, the organization has been operating in a “boldly illegal” fashion, going as far as to say that “this is a charity fraud.”
Ortel has spent 15 months looking at public records, donor disclosures, and tax filings for all of the Foundation’s projects, including the Clinton Global Initiative, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Ortel plans to release 40 reports on what he found on his website, and he claims those reports will prove that the Clinton Foundation has never had to comply with legal requirements to verify their financial claims with independent accountants. Because of this, there is no way to trace billions of dollars sent to the Clinton foundation since 2000 because of the noncompliance with state laws regarding fundraising registration, disclosure requirements, and auditing rules.
Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton [Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images]As reported by Free Beacon, Ortel has been hailed as “one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet” by the Sunday Times of London in relation to his research into such companies as AIG and GE, the latter of which he started looking into as a refresher on researching current companies before starting his own financial advisory firm. He didn’t expect to uncover a company on the verge of financial disaster.
image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/arms-deals-670x361.jpg
[Photo courtesy of Shutterstock]This latest potential scandal for the Clinton Foundation adds to the alleged ties of offering arms deals in exchange for Clinton Foundation donations while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Over $165 billion worth of arms sales were approved to countries donating to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s tenure. This went on despite concerns raised by Senator Richard Lugar, who asked the Clintons to decline foreign donations while Hillary was Secretary of State because of potential conflicts of interest, according to International Business Times.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3074927/wa...foundation-charity-fraud/#8gYsA6cce4Svo6PU.99
POLITICS
MAY 8, 2016WALL STREET WHISTLEBLOWER CALLS CLINTON FOUNDATION ‘CHARITY FRAUD’
DIANA PRICE
A Wall Street whistleblower has found a new target for investigation of financial irregularities, and it’s bad news for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Financial advisor Charles Ortel has taken on the Clinton Foundation and says that based on the records he’s found, the organization has been operating in a “boldly illegal” fashion, going as far as to say that “this is a charity fraud.”
Ortel has spent 15 months looking at public records, donor disclosures, and tax filings for all of the Foundation’s projects, including the Clinton Global Initiative, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Ortel plans to release 40 reports on what he found on his website, and he claims those reports will prove that the Clinton Foundation has never had to comply with legal requirements to verify their financial claims with independent accountants. Because of this, there is no way to trace billions of dollars sent to the Clinton foundation since 2000 because of the noncompliance with state laws regarding fundraising registration, disclosure requirements, and auditing rules.
“When you understand relevant accounting rules and laws, you will reach a simple conclusion: the Clinton Foundation (including all of its various corporate subsidiaries and “initiatives”) has been operating boldly and illegally out of control, in plain view of the general public and government authorities… Special rules do not yet apply to charities that are run by former Presidents and by aspiring Presidents of the United States of America.”
image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/hillary-and-bill-clinton-670x447.jpg
“To my shock and horror, as I tore it apart, I realized it was overvalued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It was a bad bank masquerading as a good industrial company.”
And speaking of bad banks, now Ortel has turned his focus to the Clinton Foundation to expose what he says are shady dealings by the former president and the woman who wants to be our next president. In 2015, he decided to start taking it apart to see the inner workings, and said he wanted to pick a complicated entity, even if the Clinton Foundation is still relatively small compared to a huge corporation like GE. Almost immediately, he began running into problems when tax filings and disclosure reports from its major donors weren’t matching up.
“There are massive discrepancies between what some of the major donors say they gave to the Clinton Foundation to do, and what the Clinton Foundation said what they got from the donors and what they did with it.”
Ortel wasn’t the only one finding discrepancies, and the Clinton Foundation was forced to issue corrected tax filings because of donation documentation errors over a period of several years. Unfortunately, Ortel says that despite filing “corrected” taxes, many of the discrepancies still remain.
“I’m against charity fraud. I think people in both parties are against charity fraud, and this is a charity fraud.”
Ortel hopes investigative journalists read his reports and take up the cause, as well as watchdog agencies who should enforce their compliance with documentation.
image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/arms-deals-670x361.jpg
“The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.”
That seems like an awful lot of weapons in questionable hands with connections to a “charitable” organization. But then Ortel might argue that “charitable” part.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3074927/wa...foundation-charity-fraud/#8gYsA6cce4Svo6PU.99
POLITICS
The funniest thing about this now 119 page waste of a thread, besides all the BS in it, is that it's sole creation is to try and get You and Finchy to not vote for Hillary, since you're the only 2 down here that might.
Russ is a delusional old man that actually thinks he's providing some public service by connecting imaginary dots.
Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.
Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts.
These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”
Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.
What difference does it make? Right?
Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts.
These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”
Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.
What difference does it make? Right?
[h=1]EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email[/h]
John Sommers II/Getty Images
by PATRICK HOWLEY2 Jun 20166,766
[h=2]Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.[/h]Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”
Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.
The State Department produced a document to Judicial Watch in April 2014 that identifies different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG,” which it defines as information “Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … Central Intelligence Act of 1949.”
“That’s what it suggests,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, referring to the indication that Clinton disclosed the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources, based on the B3 redactions.
The CIA justifies “(b)(3)” redactions with this description: “(b)(3) Applies to the Director’s statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency, in accord with the National Security Act of 1947 and the CIA Act of 1949, respectively.”
The State Department declined to comment. “Per the colleague who handles this issue, we are not speaking to the content of emails,” State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told Breitbart News.
Here are some examples of (b)(3) redactions;
Naming the defense attaché in Malta
24287
107
by PATRICK HOWLEY2 Jun 20166,766
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.[/h]Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”
Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.
The State Department produced a document to Judicial Watch in April 2014 that identifies different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG,” which it defines as information “Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … Central Intelligence Act of 1949.”
“That’s what it suggests,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, referring to the indication that Clinton disclosed the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources, based on the B3 redactions.
The CIA justifies “(b)(3)” redactions with this description: “(b)(3) Applies to the Director’s statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency, in accord with the National Security Act of 1947 and the CIA Act of 1949, respectively.”
The State Department declined to comment. “Per the colleague who handles this issue, we are not speaking to the content of emails,” State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told Breitbart News.
Here are some examples of (b)(3) redactions;
Naming the defense attaché in Malta
On October 16, 2011, recent U.S. Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec sent an email to Cheryl Mills with the subject line “TIME SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTIAL – Malta Trip Backgrounder for the Secretary – Confidential.”
Kmiec wrote to Mills, “I know from current events that your life must be a whirlwind. I know that if there ever was someone who could tame the whirlwind, it would be you. Just read the news report of the Secretary’s stop in Malta next week. Thank you for arranging this. This letter and the accompanying clips I believe will help make the Secretary’s visit a highly successful and well received one.”
In the memo, Kmiec revealed the name of a top defense attaché in the country. That name was later classified by the State Department with three different classifications: 1.4 (D) to connote “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources,” B1 to connote “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,” and “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”
“The largest part of our US team in the embassy is the navy/coast guard/ ncis contingent that has established a Maritime training program with the AFM to good success. The defense attaché there now is new [REDACTED] beloved and hardworking – and to good effect, patrolling the waters and the ports for [illegible] traffickers and terror related figures,” Kmiec wrote.
Mills forwarded the memo directly to Clinton’s private email account at clintonemail.com with the note “Fyi background.”
Clinton replied to Mills and CC’ed Huma Abedin with the confidential information, writing, “I need enough time there to meet. Hague is there today and doing all the right meetings. So, I’m copying Huma to reinforce my desire to squeeze more out of a too quick trip.”
When he sent the memo to Mills, Douglas Kmiec had been out of his Ambassador to Malta job for several months. Kmiec was a big supporter of President Obama. He garnered criticism in a 2011 inspector general report for ignoring directives from Washington and for spending too much time writing articles about religion.
Naming the guest in her office Kmiec wrote to Mills, “I know from current events that your life must be a whirlwind. I know that if there ever was someone who could tame the whirlwind, it would be you. Just read the news report of the Secretary’s stop in Malta next week. Thank you for arranging this. This letter and the accompanying clips I believe will help make the Secretary’s visit a highly successful and well received one.”
In the memo, Kmiec revealed the name of a top defense attaché in the country. That name was later classified by the State Department with three different classifications: 1.4 (D) to connote “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources,” B1 to connote “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,” and “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”
“The largest part of our US team in the embassy is the navy/coast guard/ ncis contingent that has established a Maritime training program with the AFM to good success. The defense attaché there now is new [REDACTED] beloved and hardworking – and to good effect, patrolling the waters and the ports for [illegible] traffickers and terror related figures,” Kmiec wrote.
Mills forwarded the memo directly to Clinton’s private email account at clintonemail.com with the note “Fyi background.”
Clinton replied to Mills and CC’ed Huma Abedin with the confidential information, writing, “I need enough time there to meet. Hague is there today and doing all the right meetings. So, I’m copying Huma to reinforce my desire to squeeze more out of a too quick trip.”
When he sent the memo to Mills, Douglas Kmiec had been out of his Ambassador to Malta job for several months. Kmiec was a big supporter of President Obama. He garnered criticism in a 2011 inspector general report for ignoring directives from Washington and for spending too much time writing articles about religion.
On December 15, 2011, Clinton’s office manager Claire Coleman sent out Clinton’s daily schedule to Clinton’s private email account and to Abedin and others.
The schedule included a five-minute Presidential Daily Briefing in the Secretary’s office between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM.
“Note: Official Photo following w/ [Redacted]” the schedule read, blanking out the name of the person who Clinton was taking a photo with. That redaction was marked “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” in addition to other redactions.
Clinton’s public schedule released for that day begins at 9 AM, after the classified photo op.
Petraeus’ chief of staffThe schedule included a five-minute Presidential Daily Briefing in the Secretary’s office between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM.
“Note: Official Photo following w/ [Redacted]” the schedule read, blanking out the name of the person who Clinton was taking a photo with. That redaction was marked “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” in addition to other redactions.
Clinton’s public schedule released for that day begins at 9 AM, after the classified photo op.
On March 14, 2012, a redacted name sent Cheryl Mills an email with the subject line“URGENT — From Dave Petraeus’s Chief of Staff…”
The sender’s name was marked with a “B3” redaction to connote violation of the CIA statute.
“Dear Cheryl,” the email began, followed by a vast section of redacted material. Those paragraphs were marked with several classifications including “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”
The email’s closing paragraphs were also marked with B3 redactions.
“Does all of that sound ok to you?” the message continued. “If so, may I please ask you to get word around immediately [B3 Redaction] only in those circumstances where he deems that to be appropriate and the best way forward? Thanks much and cheers, [B3 Redaction].”
Permanent Select Committee on IntelligenceThe sender’s name was marked with a “B3” redaction to connote violation of the CIA statute.
“Dear Cheryl,” the email began, followed by a vast section of redacted material. Those paragraphs were marked with several classifications including “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”
The email’s closing paragraphs were also marked with B3 redactions.
“Does all of that sound ok to you?” the message continued. “If so, may I please ask you to get word around immediately [B3 Redaction] only in those circumstances where he deems that to be appropriate and the best way forward? Thanks much and cheers, [B3 Redaction].”
On September 15, 2012, a B3 redacted name sent an email to Jake Sullivan numerous redacted names with a redacted subject line, most of text redacted, “Per the discussion at Deputies, here are the revised TPs for HPSCI [The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence].”
The email was later forwarded to Clinton, who told an aide, “PLs print.”
“Iran Insights”The email was later forwarded to Clinton, who told an aide, “PLs print.”
On September 2, 2009, Jackie Newmyer of Long Term Strategy Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts sent an email directly to Clinton’s private account with the subject line “Iran Insights From [Redacted]” that included the B3 redaction code:
Secretary Clinton,
Last week I traveled to Israel [REDACTED] in an Iran-related seminar and simulation exercise with the IDF general who is likely to become Israel’s next chief of military intelligence and his team and, separately, [REDACTED]. Yesterday, [REDACTED] Iran workshop in Washington involving DoD and think tank experts. Despite the fact that the meetings were with defense [REDACTED] personnel, there was universal sentiment that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive, on the one hand, and that incremental measures would be perceived by Iran as an indication of weakness, on the other.
The email included sensitive information including the following:
If Iran acquires a nuclear capability, no single American/allied countermeasure will be adequate. Something like the “flexible response” posture from the Cold War will be required, necessitating a range of actions from enhancing the US deterrent presence — nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles in the Arabian Sea — to bolstering regional actors’ defenses.
Israeli leaders should be able to contain the damage to the Israeli population’s morale from an Iranian bomb, but this will require careful management of public statements. There is a tension between building up support for action against the Iranian nuclear program now and delivering the kind of reassurance that will be necessary once the capability has been acquired.
Clinton replied that she would like to discuss the matter with Jackie.
Jackie replied:
I will be in Washington for a day-long meeting on Thursday this week [B3 REDACTED] and my travel plans are flexible, so I could meet you any time on Wednesday afternoon, after 5 pm on Thursday, or any time on Friday morning. If those times do not work, I would be happy to come down at your convenience.
Clinton and Jake Sullivan then set up a meeting with Jackie.
Naming someone at the ‘Pre-Brief’Secretary Clinton,
Last week I traveled to Israel [REDACTED] in an Iran-related seminar and simulation exercise with the IDF general who is likely to become Israel’s next chief of military intelligence and his team and, separately, [REDACTED]. Yesterday, [REDACTED] Iran workshop in Washington involving DoD and think tank experts. Despite the fact that the meetings were with defense [REDACTED] personnel, there was universal sentiment that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive, on the one hand, and that incremental measures would be perceived by Iran as an indication of weakness, on the other.
The email included sensitive information including the following:
If Iran acquires a nuclear capability, no single American/allied countermeasure will be adequate. Something like the “flexible response” posture from the Cold War will be required, necessitating a range of actions from enhancing the US deterrent presence — nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles in the Arabian Sea — to bolstering regional actors’ defenses.
Israeli leaders should be able to contain the damage to the Israeli population’s morale from an Iranian bomb, but this will require careful management of public statements. There is a tension between building up support for action against the Iranian nuclear program now and delivering the kind of reassurance that will be necessary once the capability has been acquired.
Clinton replied that she would like to discuss the matter with Jackie.
Jackie replied:
I will be in Washington for a day-long meeting on Thursday this week [B3 REDACTED] and my travel plans are flexible, so I could meet you any time on Wednesday afternoon, after 5 pm on Thursday, or any time on Friday morning. If those times do not work, I would be happy to come down at your convenience.
Clinton and Jake Sullivan then set up a meeting with Jackie.
On November 11, 2011, Clinton’s special assistant Lona J. Valmoro sent an email directly to Clinton’s private email address with the subject line “Pre-Brief.”
Valmoro wrote:
“MS — Kurt said that he has no reservations about Toria joining the pre-brief so I will confirm.
The manifest for the meeting will be:
Kurt Campbell
Jake Sullivan
Evan Mederios, NSS
Admiral Willard
Kin Moy
Toria Nuland
[REDACTED] per Kurt’s request”
That last name on the list was redacted with “B6” and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” classifications.
‘See Traffic’Valmoro wrote:
“MS — Kurt said that he has no reservations about Toria joining the pre-brief so I will confirm.
The manifest for the meeting will be:
Kurt Campbell
Jake Sullivan
Evan Mederios, NSS
Admiral Willard
Kin Moy
Toria Nuland
[REDACTED] per Kurt’s request”
That last name on the list was redacted with “B6” and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” classifications.
On March 14, 2012, Mills sent an email to then-U.S. Ambassador to Algeria Henry Ensher with the subject line “Connecting.”
“I hope your visit to DC is going well,” Mills said before writing a chunk of text that is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.
Mills’ redacted text clearly included a name because she then wrote, “B/f I could respond w/our protocol he advised that the matter had been resolved. Can you advise as to what accommodation was worked out?”
Ensher replied, “Sorry. Had not seen this until en route back to post. Accommodation was to have elizabeth go to a dinner meeting, but not the next day session with senior counterpart. Bare objectives of visit were achieved but we blew an opportunity to make the larger point about civ control of mil, which is critical in dealing with algerian leaders.”
Ensher’s next paragraph is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.
“Good work on com conf. Thx,” Ensher concluded.
After sending another email to Ensher, Mills forwarded the chain to Clinton’s private email account and said “See traffic.”
The departing diplomat“I hope your visit to DC is going well,” Mills said before writing a chunk of text that is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.
Mills’ redacted text clearly included a name because she then wrote, “B/f I could respond w/our protocol he advised that the matter had been resolved. Can you advise as to what accommodation was worked out?”
Ensher replied, “Sorry. Had not seen this until en route back to post. Accommodation was to have elizabeth go to a dinner meeting, but not the next day session with senior counterpart. Bare objectives of visit were achieved but we blew an opportunity to make the larger point about civ control of mil, which is critical in dealing with algerian leaders.”
Ensher’s next paragraph is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.
“Good work on com conf. Thx,” Ensher concluded.
After sending another email to Ensher, Mills forwarded the chain to Clinton’s private email account and said “See traffic.”
On December 12, 2011, Mills sent an email to Clinton’s private email account with the subject line “FW: Thank you for your time today.”
“[REDACTED] last day is Thursday,” Mills wrote, adding that “Lona” would arrange a photograph for the man with Clinton and his daughter and asking Clinton for feedback on the employee. The redacted portion had a B6 and a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.
“He did a good job,” Clinton replied.
The Taliban“[REDACTED] last day is Thursday,” Mills wrote, adding that “Lona” would arrange a photograph for the man with Clinton and his daughter and asking Clinton for feedback on the employee. The redacted portion had a B6 and a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.
“He did a good job,” Clinton replied.
On March 25, 2012, Jake Sullivan forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a chain involving a meeting involving Pakistan and the Taliban that had a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction in it. The subject line was “Fw: MG-Z in Dushanbe.”
Hill testimony
On January 23, 2013, Mills forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a transcript of Clinton’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the subject line “Fw: Testimony as Prepared for Delivery to SFRC & HFAC.”
The chain included an email that a person with a redacted name sent to Mills saying, “You know, she’s pretty damned good.”
The chain also included an email that Mills sent with the transcript to various people including White House adviser Ben Rhodes and various individuals with redacted names, including two people whose names are blotted out with “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.
CC’sThe chain included an email that a person with a redacted name sent to Mills saying, “You know, she’s pretty damned good.”
The chain also included an email that Mills sent with the transcript to various people including White House adviser Ben Rhodes and various individuals with redacted names, including two people whose names are blotted out with “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.
On July 25, 2010, Jake Sullivan forwarded Clinton a long email chain with the subject line “Fw: Digest from NyTimes and Guardian [Full E-Mail List].”
The highly redacted email chain was at one point forwarded to “[Full E-Mail List]” and includes on multiple occasions an individual whose name is blotted out with a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.
The highly redacted email chain was at one point forwarded to “[Full E-Mail List]” and includes on multiple occasions an individual whose name is blotted out with a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.
Mrs. Clinton was the prime mover influencing Obama to take the side of the rebels when it seemed obvious
that Ghaddafi's army was about to tear into the rebel stronghold of Bengazi & end the Libyan Civil War.
Bengazi was & still is the cesspool of Libya, in essence taking the side of an Islamic fundamentalist rebellion
vs. a despot who was no threat to the USA. That was her cardinal sin, the 4 US patriots would still be thriving
today if Ghadaffi was in charge. Now Libya is a complete hell hole with 100 Ghadaffi wannabees vying for power,
thanks to Mrs. Clinton's failure to size things up.
SECRET SERVICE AGENT BOOK ROCKS CLINTON CAMPAIGN
Sat Jun 04 2016 18:03:18 ET
**Exclusive**
Posted directly outside President Clinton's Oval Office, Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne reveals what he observed of Hillary Clinton's character and the culture inside the White House while protecting the First Family.
Coming in 3 weeks his tell-all book: 'CRISIS OF CHARACTER!'
MORE
The secret project is causing deep concern inside of Clinton's campaign, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Specific details of the agent's confessional are being held under tight embargo.
"What I saw in the 1990s sickend me," Byrne explains. "I want you to hear my story."
MORE
'CHARACTER' is set for release June 28. [It ranked #60,436 on AMAZON's bestsellers list late Saturday.]
Developing...
I bet!!
I mean, I'm 100% positive Ronald Reagan would have made the exact same decisions as Secretary of State that Hillary did! And it is like a big "LMAO, YEAH!!" to you if someone points this out!
Remember,
State Dept. acknowledges rejecting requests for more security in Benghazi
Reagan would have done it too!!
You and your little linear thinking brain are fucking hysterical to watch. You realize you're a complete simpleton, right?
The Tard's logic is primal at best. If he can't see what lies ahead for Hillary how in hell can he diagnose something from the past that is clear as a bell. Benghazi is on Hillary - is it all her fault - who cares - all that matter's is that it falls on her shoulders. She turned down requests for more and better security in Benghazi and the rest speaks for itself. If the Tard performed autopsies they would all fall under "natural causes", he would even ignore gunshot or knife wounds. LOL
[h=2]Sanders Blasts Clinton Foundation’s Donations From Foreign Governments[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Madeleine Weast
June 5, 2016 11:32 am
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) slammed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of donations from foreign governments in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday.
Sanders was critical of the the foundation’s getting money from foreign governments, specifically Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Foundation has come under criticism in the past for taking donations from foreign governments while Clinton was Secretary of State.
Host Jake Tapper asked Sanders, who has previously held his tongue about the Clinton Foundation, how he felt about it taking money from foreign governments which don’t respect American values while Clinton was at the State Department.
“You have not been critical of the Clinton Foundation but there are those who say that there’s something inherently wrong with an American charity, especially one with ties to a secretary of state, taking money from the Saudis and other foreign governments that don’t represent our values. Is that a fair criticism?” Tapper asked.
“Yes, it is,” Sanders said. “If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships, you don’t have a lot of civil liberties or democratic rights in Saudi Arabia.
“You don’t have a lot of respect there for opposition points of view for gay rights, for women’s rights. Do I have a problem with that? Yeah, I do.”
Clinton has made women’s rights and LGBT equality main issues on her 2016 campaign.
“Do you think it creates the appearance of conflict of interest?” Tapper asked.
Sanders replied, “I do. I do.”
TWEET
BY: Madeleine Weast
June 5, 2016 11:32 am
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) slammed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of donations from foreign governments in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday.
Sanders was critical of the the foundation’s getting money from foreign governments, specifically Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Foundation has come under criticism in the past for taking donations from foreign governments while Clinton was Secretary of State.
Host Jake Tapper asked Sanders, who has previously held his tongue about the Clinton Foundation, how he felt about it taking money from foreign governments which don’t respect American values while Clinton was at the State Department.
“You have not been critical of the Clinton Foundation but there are those who say that there’s something inherently wrong with an American charity, especially one with ties to a secretary of state, taking money from the Saudis and other foreign governments that don’t represent our values. Is that a fair criticism?” Tapper asked.
“Yes, it is,” Sanders said. “If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships, you don’t have a lot of civil liberties or democratic rights in Saudi Arabia.
“You don’t have a lot of respect there for opposition points of view for gay rights, for women’s rights. Do I have a problem with that? Yeah, I do.”
Clinton has made women’s rights and LGBT equality main issues on her 2016 campaign.
“Do you think it creates the appearance of conflict of interest?” Tapper asked.
Sanders replied, “I do. I do.”
