I just remember the Solyndra days. I think out of all the conspiracies these losers have tried to push, Solyndra was my favorite. I mean they were talking about impeachment and full on Watergate level stuff. It was beyond hilarious, like thinking people care about Hillary's brother or her daughters wages. These loons are the gift that keeps on giving. I've never seen people fail so much but continue to do the same shit over and over again.
It's just amazing these are grown adults. This is behavior that you get from dogs and little babies. And even they eventually learn that what they are doing is wrong and not to do it anymore. Poor guys have to live their whole lives with these weird ass thoughts that are meaningless to the world around them.
Wake up call for the trolls = even Dem's wanted Obama about Solyndra (DUH);
ICYMI: Latest Solyndra Emails Reveal WH Ignored More Warning Signs
RNC COMMUNICATIONS GREEN ENERGY FAILURES - October 3, 2011
Excerpts from the Washington Post:
“A Silicon Valley investor and senior administration officials warned the White House to reconsider having President Obama visit a solar start-up company because of its mounting financial problems, saying he might be embarrassed later.
“A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra,” California investor and Obama fundraiser Steve Westly wrote to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett in May 2010. “Many of us believe the company’s cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term. ... I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press.” …
"Last year, there were others besides Westly who raised alarms about Obama visiting Solyndra, according to the e-mails released Monday.
“Officials at the Office of Management and Budget fretted, too.
“One OMB official wrote to a White House staffer: ‘I am increasingly worried that this visit could prove embarrassing to the Administration in the not too distant future, given 1) what we just heard today from DOE that Solyndra is delaying their IPO at least until the end of the year, and 2) what the auditors said about Solyndra making it through the year absent new financing.’”
Click here to read the full article: http://wapo.st/pZpC8n
Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal:
“White House officials dismissed concerns about Solyndra LLC ahead of President Barack Obama's May 2010 visit to the failed solar-panel maker, despite acknowledging that the company and other clean-energy ventures could go "belly-up" by the 2012 election, according to emails released by Democratic lawmakers …
“Two days before Mr. Obama's tour of Solyndra, Steve Westly, a California venture capitalist, emailed Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, saying the company was risky for Mr. Obama and visiting it could "haunt him in the next 18 months if Solyndra hits the wall, files for bankruptcy, etc."
“Ms. Jarrett emailed Ron Klain, then chief of staff to Vice President Joseph Biden, who acknowledged ‘some risk factors here—but that's true of any innovative company that POTUS [president of the United States] would visit. It looks like it is OK to me, but if you feel otherwise, let me know.’ Mr. Klain then told Ms. Jarrett: ‘The reality is that if POTUS visited 10 such places over the next 10 months, probably a few will be belly-up by election day 2012—but that to me is the reality of saying that we want to help promote cutting edge, new economy industries.’”
Click here to read the full article: http://on.wsj.com/pzcZH2
Excerpts from the New York Times:
“Even before President Obama last year visited Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar equipment manufacturer, White House officials expressed concern, saying they were worried Solyndra might soon collapse, new e-mails provided to Congressional investigators show
“’I am increasingly worried that this visit could prove embarrassing to the administration in the not too distant future,’ one official at the Office of Management and Budget wrote, according to a memo prepared Monday by House Democrats describing the e-mails provided by the White House and the Department of Energy.
The new documents show that even one of Solyndra’s investors questioned why the federal government was putting up so much money to help the company expand — given the questions about it financial future.
“’One of our solar companies with revenues of less than $100 million (and not yet profitable) received a government loan of $580 million,’ Brad Jones, an executive at Redpoint Ventures, wrote in December 2009 to Lawrence Summers, then an economic advisor to the president, referring to Solyndra. ‘While that is good for us, I can’t imagine it’s a good way for the government to use taxpayer money.’
“The investment, Mr. Jones said, demonstrated broad problems with the government loan program.
From the above: “A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra,” California investor and Obama fundraiser Steve Westly wrote to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett in May 2010. “Many of us believe the company’s cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term. ... I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press.” Translation - anything negative concerning Obama is "unfair press". Right
ICYMI: Latest Solyndra Emails Reveal WH Ignored More Warning Signs
RNC COMMUNICATIONS GREEN ENERGY FAILURES - October 3, 2011
Excerpts from the Washington Post:
“A Silicon Valley investor and senior administration officials warned the White House to reconsider having President Obama visit a solar start-up company because of its mounting financial problems, saying he might be embarrassed later.
“A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra,” California investor and Obama fundraiser Steve Westly wrote to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett in May 2010. “Many of us believe the company’s cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term. ... I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press.” …
"Last year, there were others besides Westly who raised alarms about Obama visiting Solyndra, according to the e-mails released Monday.
“Officials at the Office of Management and Budget fretted, too.
“One OMB official wrote to a White House staffer: ‘I am increasingly worried that this visit could prove embarrassing to the Administration in the not too distant future, given 1) what we just heard today from DOE that Solyndra is delaying their IPO at least until the end of the year, and 2) what the auditors said about Solyndra making it through the year absent new financing.’”
Click here to read the full article: http://wapo.st/pZpC8n
Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal:
“White House officials dismissed concerns about Solyndra LLC ahead of President Barack Obama's May 2010 visit to the failed solar-panel maker, despite acknowledging that the company and other clean-energy ventures could go "belly-up" by the 2012 election, according to emails released by Democratic lawmakers …
“Two days before Mr. Obama's tour of Solyndra, Steve Westly, a California venture capitalist, emailed Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, saying the company was risky for Mr. Obama and visiting it could "haunt him in the next 18 months if Solyndra hits the wall, files for bankruptcy, etc."
“Ms. Jarrett emailed Ron Klain, then chief of staff to Vice President Joseph Biden, who acknowledged ‘some risk factors here—but that's true of any innovative company that POTUS [president of the United States] would visit. It looks like it is OK to me, but if you feel otherwise, let me know.’ Mr. Klain then told Ms. Jarrett: ‘The reality is that if POTUS visited 10 such places over the next 10 months, probably a few will be belly-up by election day 2012—but that to me is the reality of saying that we want to help promote cutting edge, new economy industries.’”
Click here to read the full article: http://on.wsj.com/pzcZH2
Excerpts from the New York Times:
“Even before President Obama last year visited Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar equipment manufacturer, White House officials expressed concern, saying they were worried Solyndra might soon collapse, new e-mails provided to Congressional investigators show
“’I am increasingly worried that this visit could prove embarrassing to the administration in the not too distant future,’ one official at the Office of Management and Budget wrote, according to a memo prepared Monday by House Democrats describing the e-mails provided by the White House and the Department of Energy.
The new documents show that even one of Solyndra’s investors questioned why the federal government was putting up so much money to help the company expand — given the questions about it financial future.
“’One of our solar companies with revenues of less than $100 million (and not yet profitable) received a government loan of $580 million,’ Brad Jones, an executive at Redpoint Ventures, wrote in December 2009 to Lawrence Summers, then an economic advisor to the president, referring to Solyndra. ‘While that is good for us, I can’t imagine it’s a good way for the government to use taxpayer money.’
“The investment, Mr. Jones said, demonstrated broad problems with the government loan program.
From the above: “A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra,” California investor and Obama fundraiser Steve Westly wrote to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett in May 2010. “Many of us believe the company’s cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term. ... I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press.” Translation - anything negative concerning Obama is "unfair press". Right
I feel bad for their families who had to endure these whack jobs....can't imagine what they've been put through. I'm sure many of them have multiple ex wives and had falling outs with their kids.....once these kids get out into the world and interact with normal people they figure out how fucked up their upbringing was.
Politics
[h=1]Clinton Foundation reveals up to $26 million in additional payments[/h]
The Clinton Foundation said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002, earning between $12 million and $26.4 million in payments. (Jim Cole/AP)
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger May 21 at 9:53 PM
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Ni*ger*ian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the Beijing Huaduo Enterprise Consulting Company Ltd., an investment holding company that specializes in the natural gas market, for at least $250,000. Citibank paid at least $250,000 for a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The disclosures underscore how much the Clintons have leveraged their star power to draw more money not just for their personal enrichment but also for the benefit of their philanthropic work.
[Clintons have made more than $25 million for speaking since January 2014]
The foundation, which has raised $2 billion since Bill Clinton left the White House, has emerged as a political headache for Hillary Clinton amid recent controversies over donations. The foundation, along with the Clintons’ paid speaking careers, have provided additional avenues for foreign governments and other interests to gain entrée to one of America’s most prominent political families. Some Republicans have charged that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, was in a position to reward foundation donors.
Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.
The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.
The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.
Thursday’s release regarding speaking fees follows earlier disclosures showing how the lecture circuit has also made the Clintons personally wealthy.
Last week, Hillary Clinton disclosed that she and her husband made around $25 million since January 2014 from speeches; Bill Clinton also was paid more than $104 million from 2001 through 2012 by delivering speeches.
The Clintons reported that income on federally required personal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton as a senator, secretary of state and now a declared presidential candidate.
But the new disclosure indicates that the former president has also spent considerable time speaking on the foundation’s behalf — 73 times since 2002.
Hillary Clinton has delivered 15 such speeches, including one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JPMorgan Chase. Chelsea Clinton, who has taken on an increasingly active role at the foundation, has collected fees for the charity from nine organizations.
The foundation did not provide dates for the speaking engagements.
Vincent Salamone, a spokesman for the Office of Government Ethics, said this week that speeches delivered by public officials or their spouses acting as an “agent” of a charitable group in which the payment is made directly to the organization need not be disclosed in financial filings of public officials.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said that analysis explains why the Clintons did not disclose the speeches while Hillary Clinton was a senator and then secretary of state.
While the Clinton Foundation has annually disclosed its donors since 2008, the foundation said Thursday that organizations that paid for Clinton speeches have not before been included in those lists because they were paying for a service and not making a tax-deductible donation.
Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, said the new release came as part of the foundation’s continuing commitment to transparency. Nonprofit groups are not required by law to release any information about their funders.
“In addition to the more than 300,000 donors who are all listed on our web site, posting these speeches is just another example of how our disclosure policies go above and beyond what’s required of charities,” he said in a statement.
“Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals and organizations across all sectors of society, backgrounds and ideologies because they know our programs are improving the lives of millions of people around the world,” he also said.
A foundation official indicated the speech dollars have been disclosed as revenue in annual tax filings to the IRS. The official indicated that the foundation will now update the public speech list four times a year, much as it has said it will do with other donors now that Clinton’s campaign has launched.
The Clintons have indicated that they donate significant personal funds to the foundation each year. The foundation official said that the couple have not considered speech revenue to be part of their personal charitable giving, and Fallon said they have never taken a deduction on their taxes for the fees.
There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.
The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.
In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.
They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.
The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.
The new data shows that a number of public education institutions paid the foundation for speeches by Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton.
Those speeches drew backlash on some campuses, as universities paid hundreds of thousands to the Clinton charity at a time of rising tuitions and slashed university budgets.
After the academic sponsors, financial services and health-industry-related firms heavily populated the list of domestic sponsors.
[h=1]Clinton Foundation reveals up to $26 million in additional payments[/h]
The Clinton Foundation said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002, earning between $12 million and $26.4 million in payments. (Jim Cole/AP)
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger May 21 at 9:53 PM
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Ni*ger*ian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the Beijing Huaduo Enterprise Consulting Company Ltd., an investment holding company that specializes in the natural gas market, for at least $250,000. Citibank paid at least $250,000 for a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The disclosures underscore how much the Clintons have leveraged their star power to draw more money not just for their personal enrichment but also for the benefit of their philanthropic work.
[Clintons have made more than $25 million for speaking since January 2014]
The foundation, which has raised $2 billion since Bill Clinton left the White House, has emerged as a political headache for Hillary Clinton amid recent controversies over donations. The foundation, along with the Clintons’ paid speaking careers, have provided additional avenues for foreign governments and other interests to gain entrée to one of America’s most prominent political families. Some Republicans have charged that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, was in a position to reward foundation donors.
Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.
The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.
The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.
Thursday’s release regarding speaking fees follows earlier disclosures showing how the lecture circuit has also made the Clintons personally wealthy.
Last week, Hillary Clinton disclosed that she and her husband made around $25 million since January 2014 from speeches; Bill Clinton also was paid more than $104 million from 2001 through 2012 by delivering speeches.
The Clintons reported that income on federally required personal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton as a senator, secretary of state and now a declared presidential candidate.
But the new disclosure indicates that the former president has also spent considerable time speaking on the foundation’s behalf — 73 times since 2002.
Hillary Clinton has delivered 15 such speeches, including one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JPMorgan Chase. Chelsea Clinton, who has taken on an increasingly active role at the foundation, has collected fees for the charity from nine organizations.
The foundation did not provide dates for the speaking engagements.
Vincent Salamone, a spokesman for the Office of Government Ethics, said this week that speeches delivered by public officials or their spouses acting as an “agent” of a charitable group in which the payment is made directly to the organization need not be disclosed in financial filings of public officials.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said that analysis explains why the Clintons did not disclose the speeches while Hillary Clinton was a senator and then secretary of state.
While the Clinton Foundation has annually disclosed its donors since 2008, the foundation said Thursday that organizations that paid for Clinton speeches have not before been included in those lists because they were paying for a service and not making a tax-deductible donation.
Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, said the new release came as part of the foundation’s continuing commitment to transparency. Nonprofit groups are not required by law to release any information about their funders.
“In addition to the more than 300,000 donors who are all listed on our web site, posting these speeches is just another example of how our disclosure policies go above and beyond what’s required of charities,” he said in a statement.
“Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals and organizations across all sectors of society, backgrounds and ideologies because they know our programs are improving the lives of millions of people around the world,” he also said.
A foundation official indicated the speech dollars have been disclosed as revenue in annual tax filings to the IRS. The official indicated that the foundation will now update the public speech list four times a year, much as it has said it will do with other donors now that Clinton’s campaign has launched.
The Clintons have indicated that they donate significant personal funds to the foundation each year. The foundation official said that the couple have not considered speech revenue to be part of their personal charitable giving, and Fallon said they have never taken a deduction on their taxes for the fees.
There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.
The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.
In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.
They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.
The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.
The new data shows that a number of public education institutions paid the foundation for speeches by Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton.
Those speeches drew backlash on some campuses, as universities paid hundreds of thousands to the Clinton charity at a time of rising tuitions and slashed university budgets.
After the academic sponsors, financial services and health-industry-related firms heavily populated the list of domestic sponsors.
[h=1]Archives officials worried about preserving Hillary’s records[/h]By JOSH GERSTEIN
5/21/15 12:46 PM EDT
Updated 5/21/15 10:53 PM EDT
Before Hillary Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in early 2013, National Archives officials were warned that her official records might wind up outside the control of the State Department and pledged to take steps to address the issue, newly released records reveal.
“We need to discuss what we know, and how we should delicately go about learning more about, regarding the transition plans for Secretary Clinton’s departure from State,” Paul Wester, chief records officer for the U.S. Government wrote to National Archives colleagues in a Dec. 11, 2012, email message obtained by POLITICO.
Wester said an individual — identified in the released portion of the message only as “Tom” — had raised concerns that an effort was in the works to move Clinton’s files from State’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom to the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.
“Tom heard (or thought he heard) from the Clinton Library Director that there are or may be plans for taking her records from State to Little Rock,” Wester wrote. “Tom then got to asking questions about what we are doing to make sure everyone leaving the Administration does not leave with Federal records. I told him we are aware of the issue and are working on it.”
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Hillary's dash for cash[/h]GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI and ANNIE KARNI
Clinton Library Director Terri Garner said Thursday she was never privy to any discussion about moving Hillary Clinton’s files to Little Rock.
“I have no idea if there was such a discussion,” Garner told POLITICO. “No one ever had it with me, and even if they had I would have told them it would not be appropriate for the William Clinton Presidential Library to house a secretary of state’s official records, former first lady or not.”
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said it knew nothing about storing her records at the library.
“We are not aware of any plan along the lines of what appears to have been discussed by the NARA officials,” spokesman Brian Fallon said.
The newly disclosed National Archives records show fears about a possible transfer of Hillary Clinton’s records out of State Department hands were fed by a decades-long battle over records of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who sent near-transcripts of his telephone conversations to the Library of Congress at the end of his tenure. The move blocked public access to the records for a quarter-century, holding out the possibility of release no earlier than five years after Kissinger’s death.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Hillary's speech disclosures come under fire[/h]JOSH GERSTEIN
Wester’s email says National Archives official Tom Mills and another person, named “Jay,” were fretting about a possible repeat of the Kissinger episode.
“Tom … and Jay continued to invoke the specter of the Henry Kissinger experience vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton,” Wester wrote.
Clinton’s launch last month of her latest bid for the White House has been clouded by continuing controversy over her decision to use only a personal email account during her four years as America’s top diplomat. One key and unresolved question about the situation is whether State officials or others made any effort to make sure her emails were transferred to State’s custody before she left office in January 2013.
The National Archives correspondence released to POLITICO on Wednesday under the Freedom of Information Act shows that before Clinton departed, some in the government were focused on ensuring that all of her records were properly archived. However, the records do not indicate how or if officials at the National Archives and State followed up on concerns or whether anyone at the National Archives knew about Clinton’s personal email use before February of this year.
Wester said in an interview Thursday that his agency did not end up reaching out to State after the December 2012 discussion about Clinton’s records. Instead, the National Archives continued to circulate general government-wide guidance to agencies about managing their records during personnel transitions like those that often take place at the end of a presidential term.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Chelsea Clinton adds author to résumé[/h]ADAM B. LERNER
“The specific Clinton issues we kind of discounted because we knew they, like many federal agencies, had processes in place to deal with the transition of cabinet officials and other senior officials,” Wester said. “We were under the impression the process was working as it was supposed to at the State Department at that time.”
Wester acknowledged that Mills had heard something that made him think Clinton’s paper files might need to be monitored, but Wester emphasized that no one raised any specific concerns about Clinton’s email.
“The issue was [Mills] heard or thought he had heard an issue related to Hillary Clinton’s textual records. We had no information or no inkling of any issues with the email matters that have come to our attention” more recently, Wester said.
Wester said he did not know at the time nor does he know now whether State staffers had any discussion about Clinton’s email at the time she left the department in January 2013.
Transparency advocates said they were troubled that despite the warnings, no action appears to have been taken to recover Clinton’s cache of emails until last October.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Fundraiser puts spotlight on Clinton Foundation finances[/h]GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI
“These records reveal that before Hillary Clinton exited the State Department, there were serious concerns about her violating federal records laws. Yet, despite knowledge by the State Department and the Archives, nothing was done about it,” said Dan Epstein of Cause of Action, which also demanded and received the Clinton-related messages the National Archives released this week under FOIA. “What’s clear is that without pressure from transparency organizations like mine, the public would never get the full story of what happened behind the scenes regarding Mrs. Clinton’s emails.”
The newly released National Archives messages also show that in the days before the story about Clinton’s private email account broke in The New York Times, Wester praised State’s records-handling policies.
“Overall, the State Department records management program and staff are considered very strong. NARA has awarded the State Department two Archivist Achievement Awards in Records Management in the past decade,” Wester wrote in a Feb. 27 message to a colleague preparing for a conversation with Benghazi committee staffer Kimberly Betz. “They also have strong Records Management Self-Assessment scores.”
The email also shows that the Archives was aware as of February that State’s basic policy for saving email was to “print-and-file” messages required to be saved under federal records law.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a 'mistake'[/h]ADAM B. LERNER
A State Department inspector general’s report issued in 2012 found “problematic morale and poor communication” in the State bureau charged with overseeing record keeping.
State’s “records management practices do not meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Although the office develops policy and issues guidance, it does not ensure proper implementation, monitor performance, or enforce compliance,” the IG report found.
However, Wester’s tone was positive in his message to be relayed to the Hill about State’s practices.
“We are not privy to all of their internal deliberations, but we believe State is making good progress on the email management issue,” he wrote.
Asked Thursday about his assurances, Wester said he and his colleagues have only limited insight into what agencies are up to.
“Those were our views based on information the State Department provided to use and also based on routine interaction our staff members have with them,” Wester told POLITICO. “The challenge we have across the federal government is knowing exactly what is happening with thousands of employees within each of the agencies….and what they do on a day-to-day basis.”
MORE ON POLITICO
[h=3]Election Central[/h]
After the Clinton email flap erupted in March, Secretary of State John Kerry asked the department’s inspector general to conduct a broad review of the agency’s record-keeping and FOIA processes.
Kerry’s letter came shortly after State disclosed that it did not begin automatically archiving official emails other than Kerry’s until February of this year.
But the newly released records show that State was working to expand its email archiving before the controversy over Clinton’s private email account became public.
“We have now formed a working group on email and are looking at ways in which to manage senior official’s email i.e. the permanent accounts. We may have as many as 700 accounts Department-wide,” State’s top records officer, Tasha Thian, wrote to an archives official in February 2014. The email chain discusses Capstone, a new National Archives policy, announced in 2013, that gives agencies the option of automatically capturing the emails of agency decision makers for archiving.
However, the newly disclosed records also show that in 2011 the State Department turned down an opportunity to take part in a pilot program the National Archives was launching to help agencies manage their email records.
“Unfortunately due to the press of business we are unable to take part in the Email Management 2.0 pilot,” Thian said in an Oct. 26, 2011, email to several National Archives officials. “With several high profile projects to manage, which have significant time constraints, we could not do your pilot justice. Nevertheless, we remain very interested in the progress of the pilots and applaud NARA’s efforts for taking this on.”
Wester said he believes the “Jay” who also cited the history with Kissinger was Jay Bosanko, who had just been named to take over as chief operating officer of the National Archives. In Wester’s December 2012 email, he also notes that other top officials at the agency, including congressional liaison John Hamilton and general counsel Gary Stern, were focused on the need to preserve the records of officials departing in the following weeks.
The so-called Kissinger “telcons” sent to the Library of Congress were returned to State in 2001 after the National Security Archive threatened a lawsuit. The pro-disclosure organization sued State in March, charging that the agency was unduly delaying making a full set of those transcripts public.
5/21/15 12:46 PM EDT
Updated 5/21/15 10:53 PM EDT
Before Hillary Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in early 2013, National Archives officials were warned that her official records might wind up outside the control of the State Department and pledged to take steps to address the issue, newly released records reveal.
“We need to discuss what we know, and how we should delicately go about learning more about, regarding the transition plans for Secretary Clinton’s departure from State,” Paul Wester, chief records officer for the U.S. Government wrote to National Archives colleagues in a Dec. 11, 2012, email message obtained by POLITICO.
Wester said an individual — identified in the released portion of the message only as “Tom” — had raised concerns that an effort was in the works to move Clinton’s files from State’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom to the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.
“Tom heard (or thought he heard) from the Clinton Library Director that there are or may be plans for taking her records from State to Little Rock,” Wester wrote. “Tom then got to asking questions about what we are doing to make sure everyone leaving the Administration does not leave with Federal records. I told him we are aware of the issue and are working on it.”
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Hillary's dash for cash[/h]GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI and ANNIE KARNI
Clinton Library Director Terri Garner said Thursday she was never privy to any discussion about moving Hillary Clinton’s files to Little Rock.
“I have no idea if there was such a discussion,” Garner told POLITICO. “No one ever had it with me, and even if they had I would have told them it would not be appropriate for the William Clinton Presidential Library to house a secretary of state’s official records, former first lady or not.”
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said it knew nothing about storing her records at the library.
“We are not aware of any plan along the lines of what appears to have been discussed by the NARA officials,” spokesman Brian Fallon said.
The newly disclosed National Archives records show fears about a possible transfer of Hillary Clinton’s records out of State Department hands were fed by a decades-long battle over records of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who sent near-transcripts of his telephone conversations to the Library of Congress at the end of his tenure. The move blocked public access to the records for a quarter-century, holding out the possibility of release no earlier than five years after Kissinger’s death.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Hillary's speech disclosures come under fire[/h]JOSH GERSTEIN
Wester’s email says National Archives official Tom Mills and another person, named “Jay,” were fretting about a possible repeat of the Kissinger episode.
“Tom … and Jay continued to invoke the specter of the Henry Kissinger experience vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton,” Wester wrote.
Clinton’s launch last month of her latest bid for the White House has been clouded by continuing controversy over her decision to use only a personal email account during her four years as America’s top diplomat. One key and unresolved question about the situation is whether State officials or others made any effort to make sure her emails were transferred to State’s custody before she left office in January 2013.
The National Archives correspondence released to POLITICO on Wednesday under the Freedom of Information Act shows that before Clinton departed, some in the government were focused on ensuring that all of her records were properly archived. However, the records do not indicate how or if officials at the National Archives and State followed up on concerns or whether anyone at the National Archives knew about Clinton’s personal email use before February of this year.
Wester said in an interview Thursday that his agency did not end up reaching out to State after the December 2012 discussion about Clinton’s records. Instead, the National Archives continued to circulate general government-wide guidance to agencies about managing their records during personnel transitions like those that often take place at the end of a presidential term.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Chelsea Clinton adds author to résumé[/h]ADAM B. LERNER
“The specific Clinton issues we kind of discounted because we knew they, like many federal agencies, had processes in place to deal with the transition of cabinet officials and other senior officials,” Wester said. “We were under the impression the process was working as it was supposed to at the State Department at that time.”
Wester acknowledged that Mills had heard something that made him think Clinton’s paper files might need to be monitored, but Wester emphasized that no one raised any specific concerns about Clinton’s email.
“The issue was [Mills] heard or thought he had heard an issue related to Hillary Clinton’s textual records. We had no information or no inkling of any issues with the email matters that have come to our attention” more recently, Wester said.
Wester said he did not know at the time nor does he know now whether State staffers had any discussion about Clinton’s email at the time she left the department in January 2013.
Transparency advocates said they were troubled that despite the warnings, no action appears to have been taken to recover Clinton’s cache of emails until last October.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Fundraiser puts spotlight on Clinton Foundation finances[/h]GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI
“These records reveal that before Hillary Clinton exited the State Department, there were serious concerns about her violating federal records laws. Yet, despite knowledge by the State Department and the Archives, nothing was done about it,” said Dan Epstein of Cause of Action, which also demanded and received the Clinton-related messages the National Archives released this week under FOIA. “What’s clear is that without pressure from transparency organizations like mine, the public would never get the full story of what happened behind the scenes regarding Mrs. Clinton’s emails.”
The newly released National Archives messages also show that in the days before the story about Clinton’s private email account broke in The New York Times, Wester praised State’s records-handling policies.
“Overall, the State Department records management program and staff are considered very strong. NARA has awarded the State Department two Archivist Achievement Awards in Records Management in the past decade,” Wester wrote in a Feb. 27 message to a colleague preparing for a conversation with Benghazi committee staffer Kimberly Betz. “They also have strong Records Management Self-Assessment scores.”
The email also shows that the Archives was aware as of February that State’s basic policy for saving email was to “print-and-file” messages required to be saved under federal records law.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a 'mistake'[/h]ADAM B. LERNER
A State Department inspector general’s report issued in 2012 found “problematic morale and poor communication” in the State bureau charged with overseeing record keeping.
State’s “records management practices do not meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Although the office develops policy and issues guidance, it does not ensure proper implementation, monitor performance, or enforce compliance,” the IG report found.
However, Wester’s tone was positive in his message to be relayed to the Hill about State’s practices.
“We are not privy to all of their internal deliberations, but we believe State is making good progress on the email management issue,” he wrote.
Asked Thursday about his assurances, Wester said he and his colleagues have only limited insight into what agencies are up to.
“Those were our views based on information the State Department provided to use and also based on routine interaction our staff members have with them,” Wester told POLITICO. “The challenge we have across the federal government is knowing exactly what is happening with thousands of employees within each of the agencies….and what they do on a day-to-day basis.”
MORE ON POLITICO
[h=3]Election Central[/h]
After the Clinton email flap erupted in March, Secretary of State John Kerry asked the department’s inspector general to conduct a broad review of the agency’s record-keeping and FOIA processes.
Kerry’s letter came shortly after State disclosed that it did not begin automatically archiving official emails other than Kerry’s until February of this year.
But the newly released records show that State was working to expand its email archiving before the controversy over Clinton’s private email account became public.
“We have now formed a working group on email and are looking at ways in which to manage senior official’s email i.e. the permanent accounts. We may have as many as 700 accounts Department-wide,” State’s top records officer, Tasha Thian, wrote to an archives official in February 2014. The email chain discusses Capstone, a new National Archives policy, announced in 2013, that gives agencies the option of automatically capturing the emails of agency decision makers for archiving.
However, the newly disclosed records also show that in 2011 the State Department turned down an opportunity to take part in a pilot program the National Archives was launching to help agencies manage their email records.
“Unfortunately due to the press of business we are unable to take part in the Email Management 2.0 pilot,” Thian said in an Oct. 26, 2011, email to several National Archives officials. “With several high profile projects to manage, which have significant time constraints, we could not do your pilot justice. Nevertheless, we remain very interested in the progress of the pilots and applaud NARA’s efforts for taking this on.”
Wester said he believes the “Jay” who also cited the history with Kissinger was Jay Bosanko, who had just been named to take over as chief operating officer of the National Archives. In Wester’s December 2012 email, he also notes that other top officials at the agency, including congressional liaison John Hamilton and general counsel Gary Stern, were focused on the need to preserve the records of officials departing in the following weeks.
The so-called Kissinger “telcons” sent to the Library of Congress were returned to State in 2001 after the National Security Archive threatened a lawsuit. The pro-disclosure organization sued State in March, charging that the agency was unduly delaying making a full set of those transcripts public.
[h=2]Miss Uncongeniality[/h]Column: Why Hillary’s press strategy could backfire
EMAIL
BY: Matthew Continetti
May 22, 2015 5:00 am
There it was—the classic Hillary charm. Close to a month had passed since the Democratic frontrunner answered questions from the press. So this week, when reporters were invited to gawk at the spectacle of Clinton sitting with “everyday Iowans,” Ed Henry of Fox wanted to know: Would the former secretary of state take a moment to respond to inquiries from non-stage-managed reporters?
Before Henry was able even to finish his sentence, however, Clinton interrupted him, tut-tutting his impertinent shouting and raising her hand, empress-like, to quell her subject. After a few seconds of talking over each other Clinton must have realized that she had to give Henry an answer. Whereupon she said, slowly and sarcastically: “I might. I’ll have to ponder it.” What a kidder.
After the photo-op was over, Clinton did take six questions from reporters—raising the total number of media questions she has answered since announcing her candidacy in April to a whopping 26. She committed no gaffes, but unleashed the full blizzard of Clintonian misdirection, omission, dodging, bogus sentimentality, false confidence, and aw-shucks populism. Voting for the Iraq war was a “mistake,” like the kind you make on a test; she and Bill are lucky people (that’s one way of describing them); Charlotte needs to be able to grow up in an America where every little boy and girl has the chance to go from public office to a foreign-funded slush fund; and family courtier and dirty trickster Sid Blumenthal is just an “old friend” who sent her emails about Libya, where he had business dealings, so that she could get out of her “bubble.”
Not much for an enterprising reporter to go on. And for all we know, the ice caps will have melted before Clinton submits to more questions. It’s part of her strategy: limiting press availabilities also lessens the chances of another “dead broke” moment, of giving answers that raise more questions. Clinton is busy—raising money, positioning herself on the left to thwart a liberal insurgent, doting on Iowa so as not to repeat her defeat there in 2008. Talking to reporters would be a distraction or, worse, an error. Everyone knows who she is. And interviews leave exposed the most vulnerable part of her campaign: herself. Nor is it like she doesn’t have anything to hide. She has a whole lot to hide: her record, her emails, her charity, her brothers, and her friends. Why risk it?
This strategy of press avoidance worked for Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe in 2013 when he was elected governor of Virginia. McAuliffe rarely if ever spoke to reporters, and instead visited with carefully selected businesses and interest groups and sob stories to whom he would nod sympathetically and explain, in the vaguest of ways, how he would make the commonwealth a better, more progressive place. McAuliffe’s campaign manager was Robby Mook, who now performs the same job for Clinton. The lesson he must have drawn from his Virginia experience was that the press, at best, is a nuisance and irrelevant to the outcome of an election. Strategic communications, lots of money, television advertising that defines one’s opponent as extreme, and the Democratic “coalition of the ascendant” are enough to win.
At least it’s enough to win Virginia in a—surprisingly close—off-year election. But treating the press with contempt may not work at the presidential level. On the contrary: It could backfire. Not because voters care about how the press is being treated; they don’t. But because the media are exactly that: the medium through which a candidate is presented to the public. Disturb the medium, tic off its individual components, and the presentation may begin to change.
Slowly and subtly, a candidate may find herself shown to be inaccessible, aloof, conniving, manipulative, privileged, elusive, dishonest. The questions she faces might grow more hostile; the investigations into her wealth might widen; interest in her husband’s friendship with Jeffrey “Lolita Express” Epstein might sharpen. The message she wants to communicate could be displaced by a media-driven caricature.
Republicans know what I’m talking about. They live with it every day: rising stars that go into eclipse, hidden behind media cartoons. Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz. The latest target is Tom Cotton—see how a Harvard-educated combat veteran is being labeled an amateur, out of his depth, disruptive because of his efforts to stop the nuclear deal with Iran. Our media are fickle, sensationalistic, anxious, insecure, and petty. They’re surprising me with their tough coverage of the Clinton Foundation. Imagine what might happen if Hillary really begins to annoy them.
The assumption has been that the mainstream press will guard Clinton like they did Obama in 2008—avoid damaging lines of inquiry, play up the gender angle just as they played up the racial one. I don’t see it happening yet, however. Clinton can’t be happy with the way her candidacy has been portrayed in the media, from her speaking fees to her email server to the family foundation. You can’t ascribe this treatment to the conservative press alone—though we’ve happily played our part.
Since Bill first became president the Clintons have held a suspicious attitude toward the media, an attitude the media seem to have reflected back at them. Obama was new, cool, postmodern, suave; Clinton is old, a grandmother, clumsy, a millionaire many times over who has been one of the most famous people in the world for more than two decades. She has none of Obama’s edge, his antiwar bona fides, the quasi-mystical importance his followers bestowed on him. No one would have written a story about Obama like the one McClatchy wrote about Hillary on Thursday: “Clinton campaigning in a bubble, largely isolated from real people.” That’s why she has Sid.
The press will no doubt take a different approach once the Republicans choose a nominee, who can then be written off as primitive or corrupt or inexperienced or stupid. I’m not expecting a revolution here, a paradigm shift in the way the media establishment conducts itself. But I am surprised at the way in which Hillary and her supporters dismiss media complaints as extraneous. Bad press hurts campaigns—ask Al Gore, John Kerry, or Mitt Romney. It can hurt Hillary Clinton too. Saturday Night Live is already portraying her as a power-mad robot; think of the damage that could do to perceptions of her over time. And there’s plenty of time.
By not talking to the press Clinton has made a strategic choice, as valid as any other. But it may be the wrong choice—in fact it probably is the wrong choice, because most of the choices Hillary Clinton has made since 2006 have been bad. She lost the Democratic nomination, she was the top foreign policy official for a president who is widely seen to have bungled foreign policy, she joined the ethically murky Clinton Foundation and gave high-paying speeches to business groups despite knowing she’d soon be running for president.
It’s the same lack of judgment and mismanagement that would cause her to vote for Iraq, then oppose the surge, then support the troop withdrawal; to do Obama’s bidding on Russia, Israel, Iran, Libya; to keep up the pen pal correspondence with Blumenthal; to act unlike any presidential candidate in recent memory. Maybe I’m dreaming, but the press could respond by taking someone who’s likable enough—and making her not likable at all.
Screenshot
BY: Matthew Continetti
May 22, 2015 5:00 am
There it was—the classic Hillary charm. Close to a month had passed since the Democratic frontrunner answered questions from the press. So this week, when reporters were invited to gawk at the spectacle of Clinton sitting with “everyday Iowans,” Ed Henry of Fox wanted to know: Would the former secretary of state take a moment to respond to inquiries from non-stage-managed reporters?
Before Henry was able even to finish his sentence, however, Clinton interrupted him, tut-tutting his impertinent shouting and raising her hand, empress-like, to quell her subject. After a few seconds of talking over each other Clinton must have realized that she had to give Henry an answer. Whereupon she said, slowly and sarcastically: “I might. I’ll have to ponder it.” What a kidder.
After the photo-op was over, Clinton did take six questions from reporters—raising the total number of media questions she has answered since announcing her candidacy in April to a whopping 26. She committed no gaffes, but unleashed the full blizzard of Clintonian misdirection, omission, dodging, bogus sentimentality, false confidence, and aw-shucks populism. Voting for the Iraq war was a “mistake,” like the kind you make on a test; she and Bill are lucky people (that’s one way of describing them); Charlotte needs to be able to grow up in an America where every little boy and girl has the chance to go from public office to a foreign-funded slush fund; and family courtier and dirty trickster Sid Blumenthal is just an “old friend” who sent her emails about Libya, where he had business dealings, so that she could get out of her “bubble.”
Not much for an enterprising reporter to go on. And for all we know, the ice caps will have melted before Clinton submits to more questions. It’s part of her strategy: limiting press availabilities also lessens the chances of another “dead broke” moment, of giving answers that raise more questions. Clinton is busy—raising money, positioning herself on the left to thwart a liberal insurgent, doting on Iowa so as not to repeat her defeat there in 2008. Talking to reporters would be a distraction or, worse, an error. Everyone knows who she is. And interviews leave exposed the most vulnerable part of her campaign: herself. Nor is it like she doesn’t have anything to hide. She has a whole lot to hide: her record, her emails, her charity, her brothers, and her friends. Why risk it?
This strategy of press avoidance worked for Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe in 2013 when he was elected governor of Virginia. McAuliffe rarely if ever spoke to reporters, and instead visited with carefully selected businesses and interest groups and sob stories to whom he would nod sympathetically and explain, in the vaguest of ways, how he would make the commonwealth a better, more progressive place. McAuliffe’s campaign manager was Robby Mook, who now performs the same job for Clinton. The lesson he must have drawn from his Virginia experience was that the press, at best, is a nuisance and irrelevant to the outcome of an election. Strategic communications, lots of money, television advertising that defines one’s opponent as extreme, and the Democratic “coalition of the ascendant” are enough to win.
At least it’s enough to win Virginia in a—surprisingly close—off-year election. But treating the press with contempt may not work at the presidential level. On the contrary: It could backfire. Not because voters care about how the press is being treated; they don’t. But because the media are exactly that: the medium through which a candidate is presented to the public. Disturb the medium, tic off its individual components, and the presentation may begin to change.
Slowly and subtly, a candidate may find herself shown to be inaccessible, aloof, conniving, manipulative, privileged, elusive, dishonest. The questions she faces might grow more hostile; the investigations into her wealth might widen; interest in her husband’s friendship with Jeffrey “Lolita Express” Epstein might sharpen. The message she wants to communicate could be displaced by a media-driven caricature.
Republicans know what I’m talking about. They live with it every day: rising stars that go into eclipse, hidden behind media cartoons. Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz. The latest target is Tom Cotton—see how a Harvard-educated combat veteran is being labeled an amateur, out of his depth, disruptive because of his efforts to stop the nuclear deal with Iran. Our media are fickle, sensationalistic, anxious, insecure, and petty. They’re surprising me with their tough coverage of the Clinton Foundation. Imagine what might happen if Hillary really begins to annoy them.
The assumption has been that the mainstream press will guard Clinton like they did Obama in 2008—avoid damaging lines of inquiry, play up the gender angle just as they played up the racial one. I don’t see it happening yet, however. Clinton can’t be happy with the way her candidacy has been portrayed in the media, from her speaking fees to her email server to the family foundation. You can’t ascribe this treatment to the conservative press alone—though we’ve happily played our part.
Since Bill first became president the Clintons have held a suspicious attitude toward the media, an attitude the media seem to have reflected back at them. Obama was new, cool, postmodern, suave; Clinton is old, a grandmother, clumsy, a millionaire many times over who has been one of the most famous people in the world for more than two decades. She has none of Obama’s edge, his antiwar bona fides, the quasi-mystical importance his followers bestowed on him. No one would have written a story about Obama like the one McClatchy wrote about Hillary on Thursday: “Clinton campaigning in a bubble, largely isolated from real people.” That’s why she has Sid.
The press will no doubt take a different approach once the Republicans choose a nominee, who can then be written off as primitive or corrupt or inexperienced or stupid. I’m not expecting a revolution here, a paradigm shift in the way the media establishment conducts itself. But I am surprised at the way in which Hillary and her supporters dismiss media complaints as extraneous. Bad press hurts campaigns—ask Al Gore, John Kerry, or Mitt Romney. It can hurt Hillary Clinton too. Saturday Night Live is already portraying her as a power-mad robot; think of the damage that could do to perceptions of her over time. And there’s plenty of time.
By not talking to the press Clinton has made a strategic choice, as valid as any other. But it may be the wrong choice—in fact it probably is the wrong choice, because most of the choices Hillary Clinton has made since 2006 have been bad. She lost the Democratic nomination, she was the top foreign policy official for a president who is widely seen to have bungled foreign policy, she joined the ethically murky Clinton Foundation and gave high-paying speeches to business groups despite knowing she’d soon be running for president.
It’s the same lack of judgment and mismanagement that would cause her to vote for Iraq, then oppose the surge, then support the troop withdrawal; to do Obama’s bidding on Russia, Israel, Iran, Libya; to keep up the pen pal correspondence with Blumenthal; to act unlike any presidential candidate in recent memory. Maybe I’m dreaming, but the press could respond by taking someone who’s likable enough—and making her not likable at all.
[h=2]The Clintons and the Sultan of Brunei Have a History[/h]Bill Clinton hinted at post-presidency money obsession from Brunei palace
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
May 22, 2015 5:00 am
In words spoken from the Sultan of Brunei’s lavish Empire Hotel in 2000, President Bill Clinton told reporters that his post-presidency would be about making money: “Now I have a United States senator to support, I understand that’s an expensive proposition.”
Clinton traveled to Brunei with his daughter, Chelsea, for an economic summit that was also attended by leaders such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Jiang Zemin, then China’s president.
The sultan, known in Brunei as His Majesty Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, put on an exhibition of luxury for his summit guests. Four hundred ninety three new cars were purchased to transport the various dignitaries around town.
Perhaps the abundance of wealth had an effect on Clinton, who according to New York Timesreporters also in Brunei, “made a strong case for his need to start producing some serious revenue flow.”
Forging a relationship with the Sultan of Brunei would aid him in that goal.
The government of Brunei contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2002, which said that the donation went toward the construction of the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas.
Clinton would return to Brunei that same year—this time without his daughter.
Clinton was picked up at a Japanese naval base by Jeffrey Epstein and his private Boeing 727—known to many as either “the orgy jet” or “Lolita Express”—and flown to Brunei to visit with Sultan Bolkiah, according to flight records.
Epstein is a registered sex offender who would regularly host Clinton and many others at his private Caribbean island before being put in prison for sexually abusing underage girls around the globe.
He spent five years in prison for the charges, though evidence is reported to have existed that could have led to more serious federal charges such as using his private jet for sex trafficking.
Two of the alleged “madames” linked to Epstein’s case—one of whom reached an immunity deal with prosecutors—were also aboard the flight to Brunei, according to the flight records.
Clinton stayed in the Emperor Suite of the sultan’s Empire Hotel, a $16,600 per night “football-field sized suite that features its own swimming pool and carpets flecked with real gold”
Clinton returned to Brunei in 2005, to thank Sultan Bolkiah for the donation he made to the Clinton library.
“I’m now going to Brunei for a private visit,” wrote Clinton on his personal blog. “I want to thank His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah for his generous donation to the Clinton library.”
He owns a Boeing 747, which he purchased for $400 million and pilots himself. He is also the ownerof an Airbus 340, 16 other planes, two helicopters, 9,000 luxury cars, and a palace with 1,788 rooms in it.
Also like Epstein, he has been accused of sexual wrongdoing. In 1997, he was sued by a former Miss USA who said she was held as a sex slave, drugged, and molested by Brunei’s royal family. The lawsuit was dropped after the Sultan and his brother claimed diplomatic immunity.
The sultan and his brother Prince Jefri have become “infamous for their sex parties and their harems composed mainly of underage girls.”
Jillian Lauren, who at 18 years of age was recruited for Jefri’s harem, wrote a book about her experience in which she claimed that “there’s no such thing as underage” in Brunei. Lauren also had sexual relations with the sultan.
The sultan, however, has also pushed the small country toward radical Sharia law over his decades-long reign.
The shift was accelerated on May 1, 2014, when he announced in a royal decree that “the enforcement of Sharia law phase one” has begun and would be “followed by the other phases.”
Crimes such as homosexuality, sodomy, adultery, and the discussion of faith by non-Muslims are now punishable by amputation of limbs, public flogging, or death by stoning.
This shift has made association with the sultan and the nation of Brunei a red flag in the progressive community.
Hollywood stars boycotted the iconic Beverly Hills Hotel, owned by the sultan, after Brunei formally adopted strict Islamic law. The City of Beverly Hills government even adopted a formal resolution urging him to divest from the hotel.
The hotel turned into a “ghost town,” as events hosted by the likes of Jeffrey Katzenberg were moved to other venues.
The Beverly Hills Hotel then hired Mark Fabiani, a former Clinton White House aide who handled crisis communications for the administration, to help it deal with the backlash.
The Clinton Foundation has previously stated that the contribution from Brunei was a “one-time donation” and that it does not expect any further donations. A request for comment about whether it has considered returning the money given Brunei’s turn towards repressive Sharia law went unreturned.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton traveled to Brunei in 2012 to “meet with senior officials to emphasize the importance of the increasingly vibrant U.S.-Brunei relationship.” She joined the sultan for dinner at one of his palaces.
Clinton also accepted $58,000 worth of jewelry from Brunei while she was with the State Department.
Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei / AP
BY: Brent Scher
May 22, 2015 5:00 am
In words spoken from the Sultan of Brunei’s lavish Empire Hotel in 2000, President Bill Clinton told reporters that his post-presidency would be about making money: “Now I have a United States senator to support, I understand that’s an expensive proposition.”
Clinton traveled to Brunei with his daughter, Chelsea, for an economic summit that was also attended by leaders such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Jiang Zemin, then China’s president.
The sultan, known in Brunei as His Majesty Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, put on an exhibition of luxury for his summit guests. Four hundred ninety three new cars were purchased to transport the various dignitaries around town.
Perhaps the abundance of wealth had an effect on Clinton, who according to New York Timesreporters also in Brunei, “made a strong case for his need to start producing some serious revenue flow.”
Forging a relationship with the Sultan of Brunei would aid him in that goal.
The government of Brunei contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2002, which said that the donation went toward the construction of the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas.
Clinton would return to Brunei that same year—this time without his daughter.
Clinton was picked up at a Japanese naval base by Jeffrey Epstein and his private Boeing 727—known to many as either “the orgy jet” or “Lolita Express”—and flown to Brunei to visit with Sultan Bolkiah, according to flight records.
Epstein is a registered sex offender who would regularly host Clinton and many others at his private Caribbean island before being put in prison for sexually abusing underage girls around the globe.
He spent five years in prison for the charges, though evidence is reported to have existed that could have led to more serious federal charges such as using his private jet for sex trafficking.
Two of the alleged “madames” linked to Epstein’s case—one of whom reached an immunity deal with prosecutors—were also aboard the flight to Brunei, according to the flight records.
Clinton stayed in the Emperor Suite of the sultan’s Empire Hotel, a $16,600 per night “football-field sized suite that features its own swimming pool and carpets flecked with real gold”
Clinton returned to Brunei in 2005, to thank Sultan Bolkiah for the donation he made to the Clinton library.
“I’m now going to Brunei for a private visit,” wrote Clinton on his personal blog. “I want to thank His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah for his generous donation to the Clinton library.”
Bill Clinton and the Sultan of Brunei
The sultan, whose net worth was last estimated to be $20 billion, has held the throne in Brunei since 1967.He owns a Boeing 747, which he purchased for $400 million and pilots himself. He is also the ownerof an Airbus 340, 16 other planes, two helicopters, 9,000 luxury cars, and a palace with 1,788 rooms in it.
Also like Epstein, he has been accused of sexual wrongdoing. In 1997, he was sued by a former Miss USA who said she was held as a sex slave, drugged, and molested by Brunei’s royal family. The lawsuit was dropped after the Sultan and his brother claimed diplomatic immunity.
The sultan and his brother Prince Jefri have become “infamous for their sex parties and their harems composed mainly of underage girls.”
Jillian Lauren, who at 18 years of age was recruited for Jefri’s harem, wrote a book about her experience in which she claimed that “there’s no such thing as underage” in Brunei. Lauren also had sexual relations with the sultan.
The sultan, however, has also pushed the small country toward radical Sharia law over his decades-long reign.
The shift was accelerated on May 1, 2014, when he announced in a royal decree that “the enforcement of Sharia law phase one” has begun and would be “followed by the other phases.”
Crimes such as homosexuality, sodomy, adultery, and the discussion of faith by non-Muslims are now punishable by amputation of limbs, public flogging, or death by stoning.
This shift has made association with the sultan and the nation of Brunei a red flag in the progressive community.
Hollywood stars boycotted the iconic Beverly Hills Hotel, owned by the sultan, after Brunei formally adopted strict Islamic law. The City of Beverly Hills government even adopted a formal resolution urging him to divest from the hotel.
The hotel turned into a “ghost town,” as events hosted by the likes of Jeffrey Katzenberg were moved to other venues.
The Beverly Hills Hotel then hired Mark Fabiani, a former Clinton White House aide who handled crisis communications for the administration, to help it deal with the backlash.
The Clinton Foundation has previously stated that the contribution from Brunei was a “one-time donation” and that it does not expect any further donations. A request for comment about whether it has considered returning the money given Brunei’s turn towards repressive Sharia law went unreturned.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton traveled to Brunei in 2012 to “meet with senior officials to emphasize the importance of the increasingly vibrant U.S.-Brunei relationship.” She joined the sultan for dinner at one of his palaces.
Clinton also accepted $58,000 worth of jewelry from Brunei while she was with the State Department.
[h=2]Clinton Fundraiser Highlights Donor Disclosure Discrepancies[/h]The Clinton Foundation dramatically undercounts contributions from a Clinton campaign donor’s group
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
May 21, 2015 1:30 pm
Hillary Clinton will raise campaign money next week from a high-dollar donor to her family’s foundation, but the foundation’s donor records fail to account for hundreds of thousands of dollars of his group’s contributions.
Florida trial lawyer Ira Leesfield will host Clinton at his home in Miami’s posh Coconut Grove neighborhood for a fundraiser next week, Politico reports. He is the latest in a long line of Clinton Foundation donors to financially support the former secretary of state’s presidential bid.
Leesfield has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its website. His group, the Leesfield Family Charitable Foundation, is also a minor donor, the website says, having given $1,000 to $5,000.
However, documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service show that the Leesfield Foundation’s support is far higher than Clinton Foundation donor disclosures claim. In 2013 alone, Leesfield’s group gave the Foundation $75,000. It gave at least $200,000 from 2006 to 2013, those filings reveal.
The group’s 2014 IRS filings are not yet publicly available, but information on its website suggests that it continued to financially support Clinton’s foundation.
“The [Leesfield] Foundation made another major grant to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library to support the ceremonies and activities which took place in Little Rock, Arkansas on November 14, 2014,” its website boasted last year.
“Ira and Cynthia Leesfield were pioneers of the initial Library funding and have supported the Clinton efforts in philanthropy since President Clinton left the White House. Their work with the Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation expresses the close ties between both foundations working for the public benefit.”
Leesfield says on his personal website that he “generously contributes to the William J. Clinton Foundation’s worldwide mission. He raised over $500,000 to fund its initiatives.”
Neither Leesfield nor the Clinton Foundation immediately responded to questions about the breakdown of those contributions, or how the information squares with disclosures on the foundation’s website.
In addition to their foundations’ close ties, Clinton and Leesfield are long-time political allies. During her swing through Florida next week, Clinton will attend a Thursday fundraiser at Leesfield’s home.
“There’s a lot of people calling to say, ‘Ira, I’ve been waiting for this, can I send you a contribution?’ Some of them are $20 and some are the max of $2,700,” Leesfield told the Miami Herald last month.
He and his wife are long-time Clinton supporters and high-dollar Democratic donors. Together, they’ve contributed more than $400,000 to Democratic campaigns, party organs, and interest groups. He and his wife both maxed out to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Leesfield last year donated $10,000 to Ready for Hillary, a Super PAC backing Clinton’s presidential bid. He served on the now-defunct group’s national finance council.
His and his charitable group’s donations to the Clinton Foundation could increase scrutiny on the foundation’s public donor disclosure. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the foundation is not bound by law to disclose its donors, and faces no legal sanctions for errors or omissions in doing so.
The foundation’s website lists another wealthy Clinton supporter, Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner, as a top donor to the group. He has given at least $25 million, according to its website.
However, the foundation acknowledged this week that that sum came not just from Eychaner personally but also from his group, the Alphawood Foundation. The Clinton Foundation acknowledged the error after Politico noted that its IRS filings revealed more than $7 million in contributions but was only listed as a five-figure donor on its website.
Like Leesfield, Eychaner hosted an early fundraiser for Clinton. They are two of at least 14 Clinton Foundation donors that have hosted or will host Clinton for campaign fundraising events.
Another such donor, Florida trial lawyer Michael Moskowitz, will also host a fundraiser for Clinton during her swing through Florida next week. Moskowitz has donated between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its website. His son, Florida state representative Jared Moskowitz, has given $1,000 to $5,000.
AP
BY: Lachlan Markay
May 21, 2015 1:30 pm
Hillary Clinton will raise campaign money next week from a high-dollar donor to her family’s foundation, but the foundation’s donor records fail to account for hundreds of thousands of dollars of his group’s contributions.
Florida trial lawyer Ira Leesfield will host Clinton at his home in Miami’s posh Coconut Grove neighborhood for a fundraiser next week, Politico reports. He is the latest in a long line of Clinton Foundation donors to financially support the former secretary of state’s presidential bid.
Leesfield has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its website. His group, the Leesfield Family Charitable Foundation, is also a minor donor, the website says, having given $1,000 to $5,000.
However, documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service show that the Leesfield Foundation’s support is far higher than Clinton Foundation donor disclosures claim. In 2013 alone, Leesfield’s group gave the Foundation $75,000. It gave at least $200,000 from 2006 to 2013, those filings reveal.
The group’s 2014 IRS filings are not yet publicly available, but information on its website suggests that it continued to financially support Clinton’s foundation.
“The [Leesfield] Foundation made another major grant to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library to support the ceremonies and activities which took place in Little Rock, Arkansas on November 14, 2014,” its website boasted last year.
“Ira and Cynthia Leesfield were pioneers of the initial Library funding and have supported the Clinton efforts in philanthropy since President Clinton left the White House. Their work with the Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation expresses the close ties between both foundations working for the public benefit.”
Leesfield says on his personal website that he “generously contributes to the William J. Clinton Foundation’s worldwide mission. He raised over $500,000 to fund its initiatives.”
Neither Leesfield nor the Clinton Foundation immediately responded to questions about the breakdown of those contributions, or how the information squares with disclosures on the foundation’s website.
In addition to their foundations’ close ties, Clinton and Leesfield are long-time political allies. During her swing through Florida next week, Clinton will attend a Thursday fundraiser at Leesfield’s home.
“There’s a lot of people calling to say, ‘Ira, I’ve been waiting for this, can I send you a contribution?’ Some of them are $20 and some are the max of $2,700,” Leesfield told the Miami Herald last month.
He and his wife are long-time Clinton supporters and high-dollar Democratic donors. Together, they’ve contributed more than $400,000 to Democratic campaigns, party organs, and interest groups. He and his wife both maxed out to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Leesfield last year donated $10,000 to Ready for Hillary, a Super PAC backing Clinton’s presidential bid. He served on the now-defunct group’s national finance council.
His and his charitable group’s donations to the Clinton Foundation could increase scrutiny on the foundation’s public donor disclosure. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the foundation is not bound by law to disclose its donors, and faces no legal sanctions for errors or omissions in doing so.
The foundation’s website lists another wealthy Clinton supporter, Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner, as a top donor to the group. He has given at least $25 million, according to its website.
However, the foundation acknowledged this week that that sum came not just from Eychaner personally but also from his group, the Alphawood Foundation. The Clinton Foundation acknowledged the error after Politico noted that its IRS filings revealed more than $7 million in contributions but was only listed as a five-figure donor on its website.
Like Leesfield, Eychaner hosted an early fundraiser for Clinton. They are two of at least 14 Clinton Foundation donors that have hosted or will host Clinton for campaign fundraising events.
Another such donor, Florida trial lawyer Michael Moskowitz, will also host a fundraiser for Clinton during her swing through Florida next week. Moskowitz has donated between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its website. His son, Florida state representative Jared Moskowitz, has given $1,000 to $5,000.
[h=1]CLINTON FOUNDATION DISCLOSES MILLIONS IN ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS UNDER PRESSURE[/h]
Michael Loccisano/Getty Images/AFP
by BREITBART NEWS21 May 2015200
[h=2]From the Washington Post:[/h]The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
…
Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.
The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.
The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.
…
There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.
The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.
…
In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.
They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.
The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.
by BREITBART NEWS21 May 2015200
[h=2]From the Washington Post:[/h]The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
…
Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.
The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.
The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.
…
There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.
The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.
…
In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.
They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.
The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.
[h=1]BUZZFEED’S BEN SMITH: TWO OF HILLARY CLINTON’S TOP DONORS IN 2008 WERE MAJOR FELONS[/h]
AP Photo/The Canadian Press, John Woods
by BREITBART NEWS21 May 2015107
From Ben Smith writing at BuzzFeed:
by BREITBART NEWS21 May 2015107
From Ben Smith writing at BuzzFeed:
When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, two of her biggest fundraisers were conducting massive Ponzi schemes. One was Hsu, who posed as a garment tycoon, and is now serving a 24-year sentence in federal prison in Milan, Michigan. The other, Hassan Nemazee, is serving a 12-year sentence in Otisville, New York, for bank fraud. He used fake documents and nonexistent loans to trick bankers into extending him more credit.
There is no suggestion that Clinton or her aides were ever aware that Hsu or Nemazee were fraudsters. And their frauds were, superficially, unrelated to their relationships with the Clintons.
But that’s how it often goes. Those two convictions cast light on a central perplexity of the 2016 presidential cycle, and its “Clinton Cash” phase: Why are shady people with murky interests always hanging around political superstars, and particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton? (Nemazee and Hsu were spectacularly felonious, and stole a lot of money, but they have many predecessors, from Jim McDougal to Raffaello Follieri — and indeed, many counterparts surrounding the retinues of other political figures.)
There is no suggestion that Clinton or her aides were ever aware that Hsu or Nemazee were fraudsters. And their frauds were, superficially, unrelated to their relationships with the Clintons.
But that’s how it often goes. Those two convictions cast light on a central perplexity of the 2016 presidential cycle, and its “Clinton Cash” phase: Why are shady people with murky interests always hanging around political superstars, and particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton? (Nemazee and Hsu were spectacularly felonious, and stole a lot of money, but they have many predecessors, from Jim McDougal to Raffaello Follieri — and indeed, many counterparts surrounding the retinues of other political figures.)
[h=1]REPORT: HILLARY’S PRIVATE EMAILS CONTAINED ‘SENSITIVE’ INFO, INCLUDING WHEREABOUTS OF CHRIS STEVENS[/h]
Reuters
by BREITBART NEWS21 May 2015117
The private email account Hillary Clinton used while she was secretary of state reportedly contained sensitive information, including the whereabouts Chris Stevens, the U.S Ambassador who was murdered in the Benghazi attacks along with three other Americans, while he was an envoy in 2011.
The New York Times obtained a third of the 850 pages of emails related to Benghazi that Clinton turned over to the agency and discovered that “Clinton’s emails show that she had a special type of government information known as ‘sensitive but unclassified,’ or ‘SBU,’ in her account”:
After the State Department suggested releasing Clinton’s emails two weeks before the Iowa caucuses in January of 2016, a federal judge ordered the agency on Tuesday to release her emails on a rolling basis.
by BREITBART NEWS21 May 2015117
The private email account Hillary Clinton used while she was secretary of state reportedly contained sensitive information, including the whereabouts Chris Stevens, the U.S Ambassador who was murdered in the Benghazi attacks along with three other Americans, while he was an envoy in 2011.
The New York Times obtained a third of the 850 pages of emails related to Benghazi that Clinton turned over to the agency and discovered that “Clinton’s emails show that she had a special type of government information known as ‘sensitive but unclassified,’ or ‘SBU,’ in her account”:
That information included the whereabouts and travel plans of American officials in Libya as security there deteriorated during the uprising against the leadership of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011. Nearly a year and a half before the attacks in Benghazi, Mr. Stevens, then an American envoy to the rebels, considered leaving Benghazi citing deteriorating security, according to an email to Mrs. Clinton marked ‘SBU.’
One email marked sensitive but unclassified reportedly contained the whereabouts of Stevens “as he considered leaving Benghazi during the uprising against the Qaddafi regime because of the deteriorating security”:
“The envoy’s delegation is currently doing a phased checkout (paying the hotel bills, moving some comms to the boat, etc.),” said the email that was forwarded to Mrs. Clinton from a close aide, Huma Abedin. “He will monitor the situation to see if it deteriorates further, but no decision has been made on departure. He will wait 2-3 more hours, then revisit the decision on departure.”
Clinton’s use of a private and less secure email account has raised serious concerns about how secure her emails were, especially when she traveled to nations like China and Russia that are notorious for their hacking. Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell recently saidintelligence services of foreign nations most likely have all of the emails from Clinton’s private email account.
After the State Department suggested releasing Clinton’s emails two weeks before the Iowa caucuses in January of 2016, a federal judge ordered the agency on Tuesday to release her emails on a rolling basis.
