Hillary Clinton’s State Department Staff Kept Tight Rein on Records
Aides scrutinized, sometimes blocked release of documents requested under public-records law
ENLARGE
Cheryl Mills, left, seen here with Hillary Clinton, was Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department and scrutinized politically sensitive documents requested under public-records law, sometimes blocking their release, according to people with knowledge of the activities. PHOTO: CARL JUSTE/ZUMA PRESS
By LAURA MECKLER
May 19, 2015 8:28 p.m. ET323 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, her staff scrutinized politically sensitive documents requested under public-records law and sometimes blocked their release, according to people with direct knowledge of the activities.
In one instance, her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, told State Department records specialists she wanted to see all documents requested on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, and later demanded that some be held back.
In another case, Ms. Mills’s staff negotiated with the records specialists over the release of documents about former President Bill Clinton’s speaking engagements—also holding some back.
The records requests came under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, the public’s main tool to get information from the government. Decisions on what to release belong with each agency’s FOIA staff, say experts on the law, to guard against the withholding of documents for political or other inappropriate reasons.
Questions about the transparency of Mrs. Clinton’s State Department tenure have been bubbling ever since it was revealed that she exclusively used a private email account to conduct her work as secretary. The existence of that private system, which is being investigated by a House special committee probing the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, meant the department didn’t have access to her emails when public requests to see them came in.
Hillary Clinton’s aides often scrutinized or blocked the release of politically sensitive emails that were requested under the Freedom of Information Act, WSJ’s Laura Meckler reports. Photo: Getty
Mrs. Clinton has since given the State Department 55,000 pages of emails she deemed to be about official business. On Tuesday, at a brief news conference in Iowa, she reiterated that she wants the department to release them.
Also on Tuesday, a federal judge ordered the State Department to release these emails on a rolling basis, not wait until they are all ready. The State Department, which had planned to release them next January, said it would comply.
READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL
Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.
In the background of the controversies is a culture at the State Department of delay and inefficiency in meeting public requests for records, both during and predating Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, according to open-government advocates, investigative reports and government officials.
An email exchange between State Department staffers in October 2012, while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, points to the role played by her political staff in records requests.
An official dealing with potential document releases described one of them as being “of interest on the 7th Floor”—a reference to the secretary’s office. A colleague replied that the records were set for release but added: “I believe, though, that this is still pending with Cheryl Mills’ office…. The real action, for now, is with Cheryl’s office.” The focus of the request is unclear.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, said, “The State Department takes FOIA requests very seriously, and has a rigorous process in place for handling the thousands of requests that come in. Secretary Clinton’s State Department took that process seriously and made it a priority, and to suggest otherwise would be wrong.”
Later, on Tuesday evening, Mr. Merrill added that Ms. Mills—a longtime aide to the Clintons who is on the board of the Clinton Foundation—“did not inappropriately interfere with the FOIA process” and “has spent her career contributing to the greater good.”
As Hillary Clinton maneuvers herself in the 2016 presidential campaign, she has refused to answer questions from the press surrounding her emails and her positions on policies. WSJ’s Jerry Seib explains why she may need to start speaking up. Photo: AP
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlachsaid documents aren’t withheld unless they fit under exemptions spelled out in the public-records law. These include avoiding harm to national security, trade-secret exposure or privacy violations.
“It is entirely appropriate for certain Department personnel to be made aware of documents that could potentially respond to Freedom of Information Act requests,” and these people may be asked for guidance, Mr. Gerlach said, adding: “This is not unique to any Secretary’s tenure.”
The Clinton political staff’s scrutiny of Keystone documents arose after a document request that succeeded. In it, the environmental group Friends of the Earth obtained emails that were sent to Paul Elliott, a lobbyist for the company seeking to build the pipeline, by an official of the U.S. embassy in Ottawa—which is part of the State Department.
Mr. Elliott had worked on Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Friends of the Earth, a foe of Keystone, suspected that this connection gave him influence with the State Department, whose approval the proposed border-crossing pipeline needs.
In one email, the embassy official sent Mr. Elliot a message saying “Go Paul!” after he circulated some potentially positive news on the pipeline plan. She also complimented an appearance by the CEO of the company seeking to build Keystone XL.
In a blog post, Friends of the Earth called the email a “smoking gun” showing “definitive evidence of bias.” A State Department spokeswoman said at the time that the emails weren’t evidence of any bias.
After the episode, Ms. Mills insisted on reviewing all Keystone-related documents being prepared for release, and flagged as problematic a few that the department’s records-law specialists felt obligated to release, said the person with knowledge of the situation.
Ms. Mills, this person added, told a records specialist that if he released records she wanted held back, Mrs. Clinton’s office wouldn’t comply with any future document requests on any topic.
ENLARGE
PHOTO: JIN LEE/BLOOMBERG NEWS
CHERYL MILLS
The Keystone documents Ms. Mills objected to were all either held back or redacted, the same person said. After Ms. Mills began scrutinizing documents, the State Department’s disclosure of records related to Keystone fell off sharply, documents that include a court filing show.
Two others with knowledge of State Department records procedures said political appointees were allowed greater say than the FOIA experts thought was appropriate. It was hard to push back against the political staff, one said.
The pipeline project was so sensitive that an expert on FOIA was invited to a State Department policy meeting to advise on how to prospectively shield documents from disclosure, such as by marking them as involving the “deliberative process,” said a person who attended.
Documents relating to ex-President Clinton’s speeches also sparked scrutiny, said a fourth person familiar with State Department records releases.
Mr. Clinton had agreed, when his wife became secretary of state, to submit proposals for his paid speeches to the department for review. Some document requests related to the reviews. On this matter, too, Ms. Mills’s office sometimes objected to the release of records FOIA specialists thought ought to be handed over, this fourth person said.
Asked who had final say, the person said, “We negotiated it out,” and some documents were withheld or redacted.
Experts on FOIA said it might be acceptable for records reviewers to seek the views of political appointees, but there should be no negotiation. “Ultimately, the career people have to be the ones who make the final call,” said Miriam Nisbet, who recently retired as director of the federal FOIA ombudsman office at the National Archives and Records Administration.
FOIA experts said they suspect political interference happens more than they know. Asked for examples, some cited a case at the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, in 2010.
In that instance, the Associated Press reported on political interference in records releases at DHS. The House Oversight Committee later investigated and issued a report saying DHS redacted embarrassing information it should have released, after political staffers insisted on reviewing records requests. DHS, which modified its practices following the AP story, told the House committee it didn’t make substantive changes in document releases for political reasons.
The State Department faces a great volume of records requests, nearly 20,000 in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, according to federal data. It processed more than 18,000 requests that year but still ended with a backlog of nearly 11,000.
A department manual outlines the FOIA process. It says in-house analysts should collect documents from various bureaus of the department, to be examined by two FOIA reviewers to see whether they fall under any disclosure exemptions. Those that don’t are to be released.
In 2012, a State Department inspector general’s report said the departmental unit that processes records requests had serious leadership and management problems. It called the agency’s FOIA process “inefficient and ineffective,” saying requests were prone to delay and bureaus didn’t treat document requests as a priority.
A later IG report, in March 2015, found problems in the department’s system for storing emails. Only messages whose senders had marked them as “record email” were kept in archives and therefore were easily available to FOIA researchers looking for documents responsive to records requests.
Of more than a billion emails sent in 2011, only 61,156 had been marked this way, the IG found.
A person knowledgeable about the department’s records process said that there is no pressure on bureaus or embassies to respond to document searches in a timely fashion; that FOIA specialists hold little stature; and that there are no consequences for people who don’t produce documents requested.
In March, the AP sued the State Department to force the release of some documents, including emails during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure. The AP said it sued after its requests went unfilled.
The State Department had no comment on that action because it is in litigation, a department official said, adding: “We face significant challenges with the increasing burden of FOIA and other requests. But we are working to get better. I think our progress through collaboration with the IG shows our commitment to improving.”
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
Aides scrutinized, sometimes blocked release of documents requested under public-records law
Cheryl Mills, left, seen here with Hillary Clinton, was Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department and scrutinized politically sensitive documents requested under public-records law, sometimes blocking their release, according to people with knowledge of the activities. PHOTO: CARL JUSTE/ZUMA PRESS
By LAURA MECKLER
May 19, 2015 8:28 p.m. ET323 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, her staff scrutinized politically sensitive documents requested under public-records law and sometimes blocked their release, according to people with direct knowledge of the activities.
In one instance, her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, told State Department records specialists she wanted to see all documents requested on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, and later demanded that some be held back.
In another case, Ms. Mills’s staff negotiated with the records specialists over the release of documents about former President Bill Clinton’s speaking engagements—also holding some back.
The records requests came under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, the public’s main tool to get information from the government. Decisions on what to release belong with each agency’s FOIA staff, say experts on the law, to guard against the withholding of documents for political or other inappropriate reasons.
Questions about the transparency of Mrs. Clinton’s State Department tenure have been bubbling ever since it was revealed that she exclusively used a private email account to conduct her work as secretary. The existence of that private system, which is being investigated by a House special committee probing the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, meant the department didn’t have access to her emails when public requests to see them came in.
Hillary Clinton’s aides often scrutinized or blocked the release of politically sensitive emails that were requested under the Freedom of Information Act, WSJ’s Laura Meckler reports. Photo: Getty
Mrs. Clinton has since given the State Department 55,000 pages of emails she deemed to be about official business. On Tuesday, at a brief news conference in Iowa, she reiterated that she wants the department to release them.
Also on Tuesday, a federal judge ordered the State Department to release these emails on a rolling basis, not wait until they are all ready. The State Department, which had planned to release them next January, said it would comply.
READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL
Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.
- Judge Orders Clinton Emails Released on a Rolling Basis
- Clinton Confidante Sidney Blumenthal Subpoenaed
- 5 Things About Clinton’s Email Archive
- Clinton Campaign Hires Immigrant-Rights Activist
In the background of the controversies is a culture at the State Department of delay and inefficiency in meeting public requests for records, both during and predating Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, according to open-government advocates, investigative reports and government officials.
An email exchange between State Department staffers in October 2012, while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, points to the role played by her political staff in records requests.
An official dealing with potential document releases described one of them as being “of interest on the 7th Floor”—a reference to the secretary’s office. A colleague replied that the records were set for release but added: “I believe, though, that this is still pending with Cheryl Mills’ office…. The real action, for now, is with Cheryl’s office.” The focus of the request is unclear.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, said, “The State Department takes FOIA requests very seriously, and has a rigorous process in place for handling the thousands of requests that come in. Secretary Clinton’s State Department took that process seriously and made it a priority, and to suggest otherwise would be wrong.”
Later, on Tuesday evening, Mr. Merrill added that Ms. Mills—a longtime aide to the Clintons who is on the board of the Clinton Foundation—“did not inappropriately interfere with the FOIA process” and “has spent her career contributing to the greater good.”
As Hillary Clinton maneuvers herself in the 2016 presidential campaign, she has refused to answer questions from the press surrounding her emails and her positions on policies. WSJ’s Jerry Seib explains why she may need to start speaking up. Photo: AP
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlachsaid documents aren’t withheld unless they fit under exemptions spelled out in the public-records law. These include avoiding harm to national security, trade-secret exposure or privacy violations.
“It is entirely appropriate for certain Department personnel to be made aware of documents that could potentially respond to Freedom of Information Act requests,” and these people may be asked for guidance, Mr. Gerlach said, adding: “This is not unique to any Secretary’s tenure.”
The Clinton political staff’s scrutiny of Keystone documents arose after a document request that succeeded. In it, the environmental group Friends of the Earth obtained emails that were sent to Paul Elliott, a lobbyist for the company seeking to build the pipeline, by an official of the U.S. embassy in Ottawa—which is part of the State Department.
Mr. Elliott had worked on Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Friends of the Earth, a foe of Keystone, suspected that this connection gave him influence with the State Department, whose approval the proposed border-crossing pipeline needs.
In one email, the embassy official sent Mr. Elliot a message saying “Go Paul!” after he circulated some potentially positive news on the pipeline plan. She also complimented an appearance by the CEO of the company seeking to build Keystone XL.
In a blog post, Friends of the Earth called the email a “smoking gun” showing “definitive evidence of bias.” A State Department spokeswoman said at the time that the emails weren’t evidence of any bias.
After the episode, Ms. Mills insisted on reviewing all Keystone-related documents being prepared for release, and flagged as problematic a few that the department’s records-law specialists felt obligated to release, said the person with knowledge of the situation.
Ms. Mills, this person added, told a records specialist that if he released records she wanted held back, Mrs. Clinton’s office wouldn’t comply with any future document requests on any topic.
PHOTO: JIN LEE/BLOOMBERG NEWS
CHERYL MILLS
- Graduate of University of Virginia and Stanford Law.
- Deputy White House counsel in Clinton administration; defended Mr. Clinton in impeachment trial.
- Has worked for Oxygen Media, New York University and Hogan & Hartson law firm.
- Senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Counselor, Chief of staff to Secretary of State Clinton.
On boards of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, BlackRock Inc. and nonprofit See Forever Foundation.
Founder and CEO of BlackIvy Group, a firm that builds businesses in Africa.
The Keystone documents Ms. Mills objected to were all either held back or redacted, the same person said. After Ms. Mills began scrutinizing documents, the State Department’s disclosure of records related to Keystone fell off sharply, documents that include a court filing show.
Two others with knowledge of State Department records procedures said political appointees were allowed greater say than the FOIA experts thought was appropriate. It was hard to push back against the political staff, one said.
The pipeline project was so sensitive that an expert on FOIA was invited to a State Department policy meeting to advise on how to prospectively shield documents from disclosure, such as by marking them as involving the “deliberative process,” said a person who attended.
Documents relating to ex-President Clinton’s speeches also sparked scrutiny, said a fourth person familiar with State Department records releases.
Mr. Clinton had agreed, when his wife became secretary of state, to submit proposals for his paid speeches to the department for review. Some document requests related to the reviews. On this matter, too, Ms. Mills’s office sometimes objected to the release of records FOIA specialists thought ought to be handed over, this fourth person said.
Asked who had final say, the person said, “We negotiated it out,” and some documents were withheld or redacted.
Experts on FOIA said it might be acceptable for records reviewers to seek the views of political appointees, but there should be no negotiation. “Ultimately, the career people have to be the ones who make the final call,” said Miriam Nisbet, who recently retired as director of the federal FOIA ombudsman office at the National Archives and Records Administration.
FOIA experts said they suspect political interference happens more than they know. Asked for examples, some cited a case at the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, in 2010.
In that instance, the Associated Press reported on political interference in records releases at DHS. The House Oversight Committee later investigated and issued a report saying DHS redacted embarrassing information it should have released, after political staffers insisted on reviewing records requests. DHS, which modified its practices following the AP story, told the House committee it didn’t make substantive changes in document releases for political reasons.
The State Department faces a great volume of records requests, nearly 20,000 in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, according to federal data. It processed more than 18,000 requests that year but still ended with a backlog of nearly 11,000.
A department manual outlines the FOIA process. It says in-house analysts should collect documents from various bureaus of the department, to be examined by two FOIA reviewers to see whether they fall under any disclosure exemptions. Those that don’t are to be released.
In 2012, a State Department inspector general’s report said the departmental unit that processes records requests had serious leadership and management problems. It called the agency’s FOIA process “inefficient and ineffective,” saying requests were prone to delay and bureaus didn’t treat document requests as a priority.
A later IG report, in March 2015, found problems in the department’s system for storing emails. Only messages whose senders had marked them as “record email” were kept in archives and therefore were easily available to FOIA researchers looking for documents responsive to records requests.
Of more than a billion emails sent in 2011, only 61,156 had been marked this way, the IG found.
A person knowledgeable about the department’s records process said that there is no pressure on bureaus or embassies to respond to document searches in a timely fashion; that FOIA specialists hold little stature; and that there are no consequences for people who don’t produce documents requested.
In March, the AP sued the State Department to force the release of some documents, including emails during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure. The AP said it sued after its requests went unfilled.
The State Department had no comment on that action because it is in litigation, a department official said, adding: “We face significant challenges with the increasing burden of FOIA and other requests. But we are working to get better. I think our progress through collaboration with the IG shows our commitment to improving.”
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
[h=2]Clinton Foundation Silent on Blumenthal’s Exit Date[/h]Emails subpoenaed by congressional committee investigating Benghazi
EMAIL
BY: Alana Goodman
May 21, 2015 5:00 am
Controversial Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal is no longer on the Clinton Foundation payroll, but it is still unclear when he left and under what circumstances.
A spokesperson for the foundation told theWashington Free Beacon that Blumenthal ”hasn’t worked here in a while,” but did not confirm when he left or why. Blumenthal did not respond to request for comment.
The New York Times reported on Monday that Blumenthal was simultaneously working for the foundation, entities with business interests in Libya, and providing foreign policy advice to Hillary Clinton while she was at the State Department.
The congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attack subpoenaed Blumenthal on Tuesday for a closed-door deposition, which could take place as early as June 3.
According to the Times, Blumenthal sent Clinton numerous emails with advice on Libya policy, which she then passed on to other State Department officials. Some of the messages mentioned officials related to Blumenthal’s business interests, while others included information that seemed dubious to State Department officials.
At the time, Blumenthal was also being paid as an adviser to the Clinton Foundation, according to theTimes.
Blumenthal, a former journalist who became an advisor to President Bill Clinton, used his media clout to help defend the Clintons in the 1990s. But some critics accused him of underhanded tactics. According to his long-time former friend, the late journalist Christopher Hitchens, Blumenthal shopped around false stories about Monica Lewinsky in an attempt to discredit her during the Kenneth Starr investigation.
Blumenthal’s ties to the Clintons came under new scrutiny in 2013, after his private emails advising Hillary Clinton on Libya policy were leaked by a hacker known as Guccifier.
Later that year, Blumenthal began promoting a controversial anti-Israel book written by his son, Max Blumenthal, and launched a behind-the-scenes attack campaign against the book’s critics.
The book, Goliath, compared the Israel government to Nazi Germany and painted the Jewish state as inherently racist. It was endorsed by the white supremacist David Duke’s website, and landed Max Blumenthal on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s list of the “Top 10 Global Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Slurs.”
The left-leaning columnist Eric Alterman wrote in the Nation that the book “could have been published by the Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club (if it existed).”
In response, Sidney Blumenthal launched an attack campaign against Alterman by blasting the columnist’s credibility in a widely circulated mass email reported by BuzzFeed. He also hosted thebook launch party for Goliath at his home, the Free Beacon reported.
At the time, media outlets were stonewalled by the Clinton Foundation when they asked whether Sidney Blumenthal was on the payroll. Blumenthal also fled from a Free Beacon reporter who asked whether he was being paid by the foundation.
At the time, Clinton ally Alan Dershowitz called on the Clintons to cut ties with Blumenthal if he did not distance himself from the views expressed in the book.
“In light of the long association between the Clintons and Sid Blumenthal, I hope that the Clintons ask Sid to expressly disasscoate himself from his son’s views–and if he refuses to, that they no longer work with him on any matters,” Dershowitz told Breitbart News.
Hillary Clinton defended her long-time adviser on Tuesday in response to the new revelations.
“We’ve been friends for a long time,” said Clinton during an event in Iowa. “He sent me e-mails I passed on in some instances. That’s part of the give and take. … I’m going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are.”
Sidney Blumenthal leaves the Capitol after being questioned during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial / AP
BY: Alana Goodman
May 21, 2015 5:00 am
Controversial Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal is no longer on the Clinton Foundation payroll, but it is still unclear when he left and under what circumstances.
A spokesperson for the foundation told theWashington Free Beacon that Blumenthal ”hasn’t worked here in a while,” but did not confirm when he left or why. Blumenthal did not respond to request for comment.
The New York Times reported on Monday that Blumenthal was simultaneously working for the foundation, entities with business interests in Libya, and providing foreign policy advice to Hillary Clinton while she was at the State Department.
The congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attack subpoenaed Blumenthal on Tuesday for a closed-door deposition, which could take place as early as June 3.
According to the Times, Blumenthal sent Clinton numerous emails with advice on Libya policy, which she then passed on to other State Department officials. Some of the messages mentioned officials related to Blumenthal’s business interests, while others included information that seemed dubious to State Department officials.
At the time, Blumenthal was also being paid as an adviser to the Clinton Foundation, according to theTimes.
Blumenthal, a former journalist who became an advisor to President Bill Clinton, used his media clout to help defend the Clintons in the 1990s. But some critics accused him of underhanded tactics. According to his long-time former friend, the late journalist Christopher Hitchens, Blumenthal shopped around false stories about Monica Lewinsky in an attempt to discredit her during the Kenneth Starr investigation.
Blumenthal’s ties to the Clintons came under new scrutiny in 2013, after his private emails advising Hillary Clinton on Libya policy were leaked by a hacker known as Guccifier.
Later that year, Blumenthal began promoting a controversial anti-Israel book written by his son, Max Blumenthal, and launched a behind-the-scenes attack campaign against the book’s critics.
The book, Goliath, compared the Israel government to Nazi Germany and painted the Jewish state as inherently racist. It was endorsed by the white supremacist David Duke’s website, and landed Max Blumenthal on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s list of the “Top 10 Global Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Slurs.”
The left-leaning columnist Eric Alterman wrote in the Nation that the book “could have been published by the Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club (if it existed).”
In response, Sidney Blumenthal launched an attack campaign against Alterman by blasting the columnist’s credibility in a widely circulated mass email reported by BuzzFeed. He also hosted thebook launch party for Goliath at his home, the Free Beacon reported.
At the time, media outlets were stonewalled by the Clinton Foundation when they asked whether Sidney Blumenthal was on the payroll. Blumenthal also fled from a Free Beacon reporter who asked whether he was being paid by the foundation.
At the time, Clinton ally Alan Dershowitz called on the Clintons to cut ties with Blumenthal if he did not distance himself from the views expressed in the book.
“In light of the long association between the Clintons and Sid Blumenthal, I hope that the Clintons ask Sid to expressly disasscoate himself from his son’s views–and if he refuses to, that they no longer work with him on any matters,” Dershowitz told Breitbart News.
Hillary Clinton defended her long-time adviser on Tuesday in response to the new revelations.
“We’ve been friends for a long time,” said Clinton during an event in Iowa. “He sent me e-mails I passed on in some instances. That’s part of the give and take. … I’m going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are.”
CHELSEA CLINTON’S BOOK DEAL INCOME WILL GO TO CHARITIES–INCLUDING CLINTON FOUNDATION
by BREITBART NEWS20 May 2015242
NEW YORK (AP) — Another Clinton is becoming an author.
Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and current presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, has a deal with Penguin Young Readers for “It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going!” the publisher announced Wednesday.
The book aims to inspire young people to “change the world” and will cover issues including poverty and gender equality, according to Penguin. Publication is scheduled for Sept. 15.
“In `It’s Your World,’ I try to explain what I think are some of the biggest challenges facing our world today, particularly for young people,” Chelsea Clinton said in a statement issued by Penguin.
“I also explore some of the solutions to those challenges and share stories of inspiring kids and teenagers doing amazing work to help people and our planet have brighter and healthier futures.”
Penguin said the idea for the book originated with Jill Santopolo, executive editor of the Penguin imprint Philomel Books.
A spokesman for Chelsea Clinton, Kamyl Bazbaz, said she will donate all the proceeds to “charities of her choosing that focus on the issues addressed in the book,” including the family charity, the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton’s parents have each released million-selling memoirs centered on their White House years. Their other books include Hillary Clinton’s memoir on her years as secretary of state, “Hard Choices,” and a publication by Bill Clinton that has a theme not unlike Chelsea’s book, “Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.”
from the above: A spokesman for Chelsea Clinton, Kamyl Bazbaz, said she will donate all the proceeds to “charities of her choosing that focus on the issues addressed in the book,” including the family charity, the Clinton Foundation.
[h=1]REPORT: PRO-HILLARY SUPER PAC FAILING TO RAISE CLINTON CASH FOR 2016[/h]
Ethan Miller/Getty Images/AFP
by BREITBART NEWS20 May 2015128
[h=2]From the Wall Street Journal:[/h]The super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is struggling to raise money and now expects to collect only about $15 million through the end of June, people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
The group, Priorities USA Action, is shaking up its senior staff in hopes of jump-starting a fundraising operation that, five weeks after Mrs. Clinton entered the presidential race, has garnered only about $5 million in hard commitments, two people familiar with events say. A third person said the total was $15 million when counting commitments to be paid through November 2016.
…
Priorities is led by a number of prominent Democrats, including President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, Jim Messina. Buffy Wicks, who was named executive director of Priorities in January 2014, is likely to leave and take a senior position in the Clinton campaign, based in Brooklyn, N.Y., one Clinton adviser said. Day-to-day leadership of the super PAC has passed to Guy Cecil, who worked on her 2008 presidential campaign.
“There’s some dissatisfaction with the fundraising,” one person familiar with the group’s operations said. “There was some unhappiness with the lack of leadership in the organization.”
by BREITBART NEWS20 May 2015128
[h=2]From the Wall Street Journal:[/h]The super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is struggling to raise money and now expects to collect only about $15 million through the end of June, people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
The group, Priorities USA Action, is shaking up its senior staff in hopes of jump-starting a fundraising operation that, five weeks after Mrs. Clinton entered the presidential race, has garnered only about $5 million in hard commitments, two people familiar with events say. A third person said the total was $15 million when counting commitments to be paid through November 2016.
…
Priorities is led by a number of prominent Democrats, including President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, Jim Messina. Buffy Wicks, who was named executive director of Priorities in January 2014, is likely to leave and take a senior position in the Clinton campaign, based in Brooklyn, N.Y., one Clinton adviser said. Day-to-day leadership of the super PAC has passed to Guy Cecil, who worked on her 2008 presidential campaign.
“There’s some dissatisfaction with the fundraising,” one person familiar with the group’s operations said. “There was some unhappiness with the lack of leadership in the organization.”
[h=1]CONGRESS MAY LIMIT EX-PRESIDENTS’ FEDERAL BENEFITS – ‘MIGHT AS WELL BE CALLED THE CLINTON CASH ACT’[/h]
by ALEX SWOYER20 May 2015Washington, DC275
Following the revelations about the millions of dollars former President Bill Clinton makes from speaking fees, the House Oversight Committee passed a measure that would limit federal taxpayer money for former presidents. The measure passed unanimously – and while Clinton wasn’t specifically named, the Washington Post points out, “with so much focus on the Clintons’ income these days, this bill might as well be called the ‘Clinton Cash’ Act.”
The bill would provide former presidents with lifetime federal benefits of $200,000 and pay $200,000 per year as an allowance. But if a former president were to earn more than $400,000 in a year, the amount would be deducted dollar for dollar.
According to the Washington Post, Clinton made roughly $9.7 million last year, so if the bill had been law then, he would have received no federal benefits at all.
A previous report from CNBC estimated, “The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA)
reportedly wants to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.“I believe our American taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing these extra efforts for their office space to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars…when those gentlemen can make the money themselves to provide for those types of situations in one single speech,” Ernst said at an event last week.
by ALEX SWOYER20 May 2015Washington, DC275
Following the revelations about the millions of dollars former President Bill Clinton makes from speaking fees, the House Oversight Committee passed a measure that would limit federal taxpayer money for former presidents. The measure passed unanimously – and while Clinton wasn’t specifically named, the Washington Post points out, “with so much focus on the Clintons’ income these days, this bill might as well be called the ‘Clinton Cash’ Act.”
The bill would provide former presidents with lifetime federal benefits of $200,000 and pay $200,000 per year as an allowance. But if a former president were to earn more than $400,000 in a year, the amount would be deducted dollar for dollar.
According to the Washington Post, Clinton made roughly $9.7 million last year, so if the bill had been law then, he would have received no federal benefits at all.
A previous report from CNBC estimated, “The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA)
75%
reportedly wants to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.“I believe our American taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing these extra efforts for their office space to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars…when those gentlemen can make the money themselves to provide for those types of situations in one single speech,” Ernst said at an event last week.
Hillary Takes Muslim Name
TERRORIST ACTIVITY HAS CAUSED HILLARY CLINTON TO TAKE MEASURES IN ORDER TO PROTECT HER CANDIDACY FOR
THE 2016 PRESIDENCY.
FOR SECURITY REASONS, HILLARY HAS CHOSEN A MUSLIM NAME.
SO FROM NOW ON, PLEASE USE HER NEW MUSLIM NAME:
SELDOM BIN LAYED
.......as we get closer to the election, we must remember that we cannot trust Hillary Clinton to create American jobs........
The last time she had a simple job to do, she outsourced it to Monica Lewinsky.....
TERRORIST ACTIVITY HAS CAUSED HILLARY CLINTON TO TAKE MEASURES IN ORDER TO PROTECT HER CANDIDACY FOR
THE 2016 PRESIDENCY.
FOR SECURITY REASONS, HILLARY HAS CHOSEN A MUSLIM NAME.
SO FROM NOW ON, PLEASE USE HER NEW MUSLIM NAME:
SELDOM BIN LAYED
.......as we get closer to the election, we must remember that we cannot trust Hillary Clinton to create American jobs........
The last time she had a simple job to do, she outsourced it to Monica Lewinsky.....
What a bitch. Donating time and time again to less fortunate. How do these people sleep at night?
CHELSEA CLINTON’S BOOK DEAL INCOME WILL GO TO CHARITIES–INCLUDING CLINTON FOUNDATION
Greg Allen/Invision/AP
by BREITBART NEWS20 May 2015242
NEW YORK (AP) — Another Clinton is becoming an author.
Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and current presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, has a deal with Penguin Young Readers for “It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going!” the publisher announced Wednesday.
The book aims to inspire young people to “change the world” and will cover issues including poverty and gender equality, according to Penguin. Publication is scheduled for Sept. 15.
“In `It’s Your World,’ I try to explain what I think are some of the biggest challenges facing our world today, particularly for young people,” Chelsea Clinton said in a statement issued by Penguin.
“I also explore some of the solutions to those challenges and share stories of inspiring kids and teenagers doing amazing work to help people and our planet have brighter and healthier futures.”
Penguin said the idea for the book originated with Jill Santopolo, executive editor of the Penguin imprint Philomel Books.
A spokesman for Chelsea Clinton, Kamyl Bazbaz, said she will donate all the proceeds to “charities of her choosing that focus on the issues addressed in the book,” including the family charity, the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton’s parents have each released million-selling memoirs centered on their White House years. Their other books include Hillary Clinton’s memoir on her years as secretary of state, “Hard Choices,” and a publication by Bill Clinton that has a theme not unlike Chelsea’s book, “Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.”
from the above: A spokesman for Chelsea Clinton, Kamyl Bazbaz, said she will donate all the proceeds to “charities of her choosing that focus on the issues addressed in the book,” including the family charity, the Clinton Foundation.
russ the troll still is full spam mode. What a sheep
you wackjobs are just bad people.
So Hillary's emails reveal that knew the day after the Benghazi attacks it was a terrorist attack but lied at the funeral anyway:
The next day, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what had occurred. Citing “sensitive sources” in Libya, the memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said.
===
By the way, an all time classic beclowning was when the fat Alaskan kid said that the Benghazi attack was done by "a few dudes" who were sitting around bored.
You can't make that level of stupid up.
The next day, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what had occurred. Citing “sensitive sources” in Libya, the memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said.
===
By the way, an all time classic beclowning was when the fat Alaskan kid said that the Benghazi attack was done by "a few dudes" who were sitting around bored.
You can't make that level of stupid up.
