Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[russ1945]

[h=2]FEC Attempts to Strong-Arm Anti-Hillary Group[/h]Stop Hillary PAC ridicules federal regulators for claiming voters will confuse it with Clinton campaign
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Protesters gather before a Hillary Clinton campaign event / AP​

BY: Lachlan Markay
June 3, 2015 5:01 am

Stop Hillary PAC on Tuesday responded to federal regulators’ attempts to force the group to change its name with a simple declaration: “No.”
The Federal Election Commission told the group, a super PAC that opposes Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, that it had to choose a different name in order to make clear that it is not affiliated with Clinton’s campaign.
Stop Hillary PAC said that the concern was laughable. It responded with a sternly worded and at times humorous letter declaring that the FEC’s interpretation of relevant regulations would “suppress citizens’ First Amendment rights to engage in robust political speech.”
Given the “hundreds of clowns who file to seek that office every 4 years,” and the thousands more who seek other federal offices, political groups cannot be expected to avoid any uses of their names, Stop Hillary said.
It further suggested that if citizens confuse the anti-Clinton super PAC with the presidential candidate’s campaign committee, the latter should be the one forced to change its name, having registered with the FEC after Stop Hillary PAC did so.
The exchange began with a Monday letter from the FEC.
“Your committee’s name includes the name of a candidate; however, your committee does not appear to be an authorized committee of that candidate,” the FEC wrote.
It requested that Stop Hillary PAC either change its official designation to a candidate committee, or change its name “so that it does not include the candidate’s name and/or provide further clarification regarding the nature of your committee.”
Stop Hillary scoffed at the request, which it said “seeks to restrain this Committee’s constitutional right to free speech and association as follows.”
As a committee explicitly opposed to Hillary Clinton, the idea that it could be confused with Clinton’s campaign committee is ludicrous, it said.
“This Committee is unsure, considering the choice to include the verb ‘STOP’ in the Committee’s name, followed by the clear object sought to be stopped, ‘Hillary’, what further clarification could possibly make clearer the Committee’s lack of candidate authorization and, in fact, its open, aggressive, and blatantly obvious opposition to, Hillary Clinton,” the group wrote.
“This Committee would encourage the FEC to vigorously investigate who it is that is so stupid that they would think a political committee named ‘Stop Hillary PAC’ is in any way an authorized committee of Hillary Clinton.
The FEC itself adjudicated a legal complaint filed by Stop Hillary alleging violations of federal campaign finance laws by Clinton’s de-facto campaign, Stop Hillary noted.
The date of Clinton’s eventual declaration of her candidacy is of particular import, Stop Hillary said, given that the committee registered with the FEC before Clinton’s presidential campaign committee was technically formed.
“As this Committee filed its Form 1 well before any known current federal candidate named Hillary registered with the Commission, we invite any such candidate to make any necessary name changes to alleviate whatever apparent confusion has befuddled the Commission,” it wrote.
A spokeswoman for the FEC said that she could not comment on matters currently pending before the commission, but that in general a failure to comply with the relevant statutes could result in enforcement actions against a committee.
That mirrors language in the FEC’s letter to Stop Hillary, which also warned that it could initiate “audit action.”

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Big Liberal Donors Worried About Hillary’s Wall Street Ties[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Hillary Clinton / AP​

BY: Brent Scher
June 3, 2015 11:38 am

The wealthiest donors on the left are concerned that Hillary Clinton is “in the pocket of big Wall Street banks” and won’t be making large contributions to her campaign, according to Politico’s Ken Vogel.
Vogel obtained a memo prepared by David Brock, who runs multiple Clinton-aligned groups dependent on the wealthy left-wing donor class, ahead of a fundraising pitch he made at a Democracy Alliance meetingearlier this year.
The first question Brock was prepared to answer from the network of rich liberal donors, according to the document, was regarding Clinton’s ties to Wall Street.
“You say the Kochs represent all that is bad in this broken system, yet our presumptive nominee is in the pocket of big Wall Street banks,” begins the question. “Aren’t we going to have a hard time going after the Kochs’ big money when some could argue that Sec. Clinton is bank rolled by Wall Street and therefore there is a pox on both our houses?”
The memo’s prescribed answer to questions about Clinton’s Wall Street ties does not dispute the ties, and acknowledges that Clinton is not the type of candidate that the donor group—many of whom have contributed to efforts to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.)—is looking for.
“It is no secret that Sec. Clinton is fair-left and not far-left. I think it is safe to say that there will be a dramatic difference between Sec. Clinton and whoever is the Republican opponent. She has spent a lifetime advocating for women and children and fighting for the middle class and there is not one GOP candidate who has that record,” was the memo’s response.
Members of Democracy Alliance say that while they will likely end up voting for Clinton, they will not be writing her the large checks that the campaign seeks and are open to supporting other candidates, according to Vogel.

Another donor who attended, Utah-based investor Art Lipson, told POLITICO that [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta didn’t overtly seek support for Clinton’s campaign. “First of all, that would have gone over badly. And he is much too smart to say it and doesn’t need to say it,” said Lipson, who has donated about $2.5 million over the years to Democratic candidates and committees.
Lipson said he recently donated to a super PAC trying to draft Warren into the Democratic presidential primary. In an assessment that could apply to many Democracy Alliance members, he said “her message is exactly my message, so I am 100 percent behind her. But there is no chance she is going to run.” Lipson plans to attend a fundraiser this month in Salt Lake City for Martin O’Malley’s Democratic presidential campaign and said the former Maryland governor “comes across as being highly intelligent.”
Lipson said he’s “fine with Hillary,” given “that it would take some sort of a national disaster to have some other Democratic candidate” win the nomination. But he said that, while he’ll vote for her over prospective Republican rivals, he does not plan to donate to her campaign, let alone any supportive super PAC.
​

Vogel added on Wednesday that the Clinton campaign fears that there is a “lingering unease” with the liberal base about her candidacy.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]THE CLINTON SCANDALS WERE VERY REAL[/h]

35​

0​

10​

Susan Walsh/AP Photo

by DAVID BOSSIE3 Jun 2015Washington, DC30

[h=2]This op-ed was written in response to Joe Conason’s recent article in Politico Magazine entitled “The Fake Clinton Scandals Are Back.” Politico Magazine declined to publish my response.[/h]Clinton, Inc. has ordered their surrogates to go out and try to convince the American people that all the Clinton scandals of the 1990’s were just a figment of everybody’s imagination. I’ll call it the “Keyser Soze Defense”—convince the world that they never existed. It’s chutzpah to the highest degree, but right out of the Clinton playbook. Joe Conason’s recent article entitled “The Fake Clinton Scandals Are Back” is a perfect example. The cynical Clinton machine is betting that the American people are a forgetful bunch that either won’t recall what happened two decades ago or doesn’t care to learn. I beg to differ. I believe the American people are already on to them and the desperate measures coming out of Clinton World prove it.
The central thesis is that Whitewater and other significant controversies surrounding the Clintons were “fake” scandals. The opening sentences of the Conason piece are: “Has Washington learned nothing from Whitewater? The Clintons have spent their entire political lives in the capital dogged by one fake scandal after another.” In fact, this point seems to consume Conason’s thinking. He wrote another article in the New York Daily News last month that was entitled: “‘Clinton Cash’: This year’s Whitewater, more smoke than fire.” In reality, nothing could be further from the truth—not even Bill’s grand jury testimony or the story about Hillary’s “missing” billing records.
Here are the facts. According to The Associated Press, the Whitewater investigation “resulted in 24 indictments, at least 16 convictions.” There is nothing fake about these prosecutions. Just ask Hillary Clinton’s former law partner, Webster Hubbell. Some of the other “fake” scandals being referred to are probably the foreign money campaign finance scandal following President Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996 that resulted in 26 prosecutions, including longtime Clinton benefactor James Riady. The videos of President Clinton and James Riady in the Oval Office are truly priceless.
After misrepresenting the facts on the scandals themselves, the next move in the Clinton playbook is to divert attention from the focal point. So the focus of late is on Sidney Blumenthal, who Conason labels “the fake villain.” Blumenthal is the long time Clinton hatchet man who appeared before the Whitewater grand jury three times and was one of the four witnesses called at President Clinton’s impeachment trial. Lately, everyone is trying to figure out why Blumenthal—a former journalist and political operative—was advising Secretary Hillary Clinton on official U.S. national security matters in Libya while being paid by the Clinton Foundation. Blumenthal is certainly a shady character, but he’s not the villain we should be concerned about.
The Clinton playbook then says to move on to attacking the motivations of both the investigator (in this case Benghazi Committee Chairman
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

87%​

) and the press corps, both signature Clintonian damage control tactics, just ask Sen. Al D’Amato, Rep. Dan Burton, and countless members of the media. After all, with the Clintons, it’s always someone else’s fault. Next, the Clintons like to magically become friends of the taxpayer, always saying the current investigation is a waste of federal dollars. If you can recall, this was a constant avenue of attack from the Clinton White House on Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and congressional oversight committees. Even their public relations playbook is a thing from the past.When it comes to the allegations surrounding official State Department business, foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, and missing emails, there is much for voters to be concerned about. People are rightfully trying to understand how to balance a former President’s work around the world with a spouse’s official foreign policy decisions and what happens when those interests diverge. Here’s what I know at present: if Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash is this year’s Whitewater, as the Clinton camp predicts, Hillary is in a lot trouble.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]21 NEW ‘CLINTON CASH’ REVELATIONS THAT HAVE IMPERILED HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN[/h]

8245​

12​

504​

by BREITBART NEWS3 Jun 2015680

[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]









[h=2]Prior to the release of the New York Times bestselling investigative exposé Clinton Cash by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, Hillary Clinton and her supporters claimed she was among the most vetted political figures in America—a candidate about whom everything was known.[/h]Yet as media outlets across the ideological spectrum have confirmed and verified the book’s explosive revelations about Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State and the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign sources into the Clinton Foundation, the nation has learned much it did not know. Subsequent reporting by national news outlets has expanded on the book’s findings using its investigative methodology.
Indeed, the dizzying flurry of resulting Hillary Clinton Foundation scandals has been difficult to keep up with. As CNN’s John King put it on Sunday, “You can’t go 20 minutes in this town, it seems, without some sort of a story about Clinton Foundation that gives you a little bit of the creeps.”
Early on, as Clinton Cash bombshells began appearing in the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought to calm nervous campaign donors by announcing the creation of a special “rapid response” War Room aimed at combating a book, an unprecedented move in the annals of modern presidential campaigning. The Clinton campaign team built a website called “The Briefing,” issued memos, and tasked an eight-person team to create videos featuring embattled Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon as he awkwardly and unsuccessfullyattempted to smear Peter Schweizer. Team Clinton’s message: all of Clinton Cash’srevelations are incorrect or merely “coincidences.”
Yet as the nation’s largest news organizations began to confirm finding after finding, the Clinton campaign did the only thing it could: it gave up in its attempts to refute the swelling avalanche of now well-established facts. Indeed, the Clinton campaign’s last video response on its “The Briefing” YouTube page is dated May 5th—Clinton Cash’s official launch date.
To date, Hillary Clinton has yet to substantively answer a single question from the mountain of Clinton Cash questions that continue to pile up with each passing day.
The result: according to Tuesday’s CNN poll, the “Clinton Cash Effect” has rendered Hillary Clinton historic new lows in her favorability with American voters.
Below we chronicle just 21 of the myriad Clinton Cash-related revelations that have emerged since the book’s publication—all of which have been confirmed and verified as accurate by national media organizations.

1. Huffington Post: Clintons Bagged at Least $3.4 Million for 18 Speeches Funded by Keystone Pipeline Banks

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank—two of the Keystone XL pipeline’s largest investors—fully or partially bankrolled eight Hillary Clinton speeches that “put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate’s pocket,” reports the Huffington Post.
Moreover, according to Clinton Cash, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, Bill Clinton delivered 10 speeches from Nov. 2008 to mid-2011 totaling $1.8 million paid for by TD Bank, which held a $1.6 billion investment in the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Clintons’ speaking fees windfall, which has infuriated environmental groups, have yet to be addressed by Hillary Clinton.

1. New York Times: Clinton Foundation Shook Down a Tiny Tsunami Relief Nonprofit for a $500,000 Speaking Fee

Bill Clinton refused to give a speech for a tiny nonprofit seeking to raise money for tsunami victims until the group agreed to pay a $500,000 speaking fee to the Clinton Foundation. The Times reported that the Clinton Foundation “sent the charity an invoice,” which “amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds—enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.”

1. New York Magazine: Clinton Foundation “Strong-Armed” Charity Watchdog Group

When “the Clinton Foundation wound up on a ‘watch list’ maintained by the Charity Navigator, dubbed the ‘most prominent’ nonprofit watchdog,” reported New York Magazine writer Gabriel Sherman, “the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member.”

1. International Business Times: Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Gave Clinton Foundation Donors Weapons Deals

“Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data,”reports IBT. “That figure—derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012)—represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.”
Salon, MotherJones, HuffingtonPost, Slate, and several other liberal publications reported on IBT’s findings.

1. Washington Post: Clintons Hid 1,100 Foreign Donor Names in Violation of Ethics Agreement with Obama Admin.

Clinton Cash revealed five hidden foreign donations. On the heels of the book’s publication, the Washington Post uncovered another 1,100 foreign donor names hidden in the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—a Clinton Foundation initiative Bill Clinton erected with controversial billionaire mining executive Frank Giustra.
“A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration,” reports the Washington Post. “The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.”
In a follow-up story, the Post reports that only 21 of Frank Giustra and Bill Clinton’s secret 1,100 foreign donors have subsequently been revealed. If and when the other 1,079 hidden donors names will be revealed is presently unclear—and will be the subject of forthcoming investigative reports by Breitbart News.

1. Vox: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Lobbied Hillary’s State Dept.

“Public records alone reveal a nearly limitless supply of cozy relationships between the Clintons and companies with interests before the government,” reports Vox. “There’s a household name at the nexus of the foundation and the State Department for every letter of the alphabet but “X” (often more than one): Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Chevron, (John) Deere, Eli Lilly, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, HBO, Intel, JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, NBC Universal, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Qualcomm, Rotary International, Siemens, Target, Unilever, Verizon, Walmart, Yahoo, and Ze-gen.”

1. BuzzFeed: Two of Hillary Clinton’s Top Donors Were Major Felons

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,”reports Ben Smith of BuzFeed. “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?”

1. Daily Beast: Clintons’ Charity Scored Millions from Qatar and Donations from Corrupt FIFA Soccer Organization

“The Clinton global charity has received between $50,000 and $100,000 from soccer’s governing body and has partnered with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on several occasions, according to donor listings on the foundation’s website,”reports The Daily Beast. “Qatar 2022 committee gave the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014 and the State of Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million in previous, unspecified years.”

1. Associated Press: The Clintons’ Have a Secret “Pass-Through” Company—WJC, LLC

“The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family’s finances,” reported the AP. “The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president’s finances on the record, said the entity was a ‘pass-through’ company designed to channel payments to the former president.”
Hillary Clinton has yet to release the names and amounts of the payments that flowed through the hidden WJC, LLC, company.

1. New York Times: Hillary Funneled $10K Monthly Payments to Sidney Blumenthal Through Clinton Foundation

“An examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years,” reports the Times. “While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation…and worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.”

1. New Yorker: Bill Clinton Scored a $500,000 Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-backed Bank

The New Yorker confirms Clinton Cash’s reporting that Bill Clinton bagged $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin.”
“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the New Yorker. To date, Hillary Clinton nor her campaign have answered that question.

1. Washington Post: Hillary Clinton’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Co. that Received a Coveted Haitian “Gold Exploitation Permit” that Has Only Twice Been Awarded in 50 Years. Rodham Met the Mining Executive in Charge of the Company at a Clinton Foundation Event.

“In interviews with The Washington Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative—an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors.”
“Asked whether he attends CGI meetings to explore personal business opportunities, Rodham responded, ‘No, I go to see old friends. But you never know what can happen.’”

1. New York Times: Court Proceedings Reveal Hillary’s Brother Claimed Admits Clinton Foundation and the Clintons Are Key to His Haiti Connections

“I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Tony Rodham said according to a transcript of his testimony obtained by The Times. “That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials. I hound my brother-in-law [Bill Clinton], because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.”

1. Wall Street Journal: Clinton Foundation Violated Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Admin. By Keeping Secret a Foreign Donation of Two Million Shares of Stock from a Foreign Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.

Clinton Cash revealed that Canadian mining tycoon Stephen Dattels scored an “open pit mining” concession at the Phulbari Mines in Bangladesh where his Polo Resources had investments. The coveted perk came just two months after Polo Resources gave the Clinton Foundation 2,000,000 shares of stock—a donation the Clinton Foundation kept hidden.

1. New York Times: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Claims She Had No Idea Her State Dept. Was Considering Approving the Transfer of 20% of U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.—Even as the Clinton Foundation Bagged $145 Million in Donations from Investors in the Deal

In a 4,000-word front-page New York Times investigation, the Times confirmed in granular detail Clinton Cash’s reporting that Hillary’s State Dept. was one of nine agencies approving the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government. “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States,” reports the Times.
The Times then published a detailed table and infographic cataloging the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation made by uranium executives involved in the Russian transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium.

1. Bloomberg: A For-Profit University Put Bill Clinton on Its Payroll and Scored a Jump in Funding from Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. WhenClinton Cash Revealed the Scheme, Bill Clinton Quickly Resigned.

Even as Hillary Clinton and Democrats continue to blast for-profit colleges and universities, Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues to stonewall questions about how much Bill Clinton was paid by Laureate International Universities, one of the largest for-profit education companies in the world—and an organization that has underwritten Clinton Foundation events. As soon as Clinton Cash revealed Bill Clinton spent years on Laureate’s payroll, the former president quickly resigned.
According to an analysis by Bloomberg: “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”
Hillary Clinton has refused to answer questions about the Clintons’ income from the for-profit education company.

1. New York Times: The Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company Ian Telfer Made Secret Donations Totaling $2.35 Million to the Clinton Foundation—as Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Transfer of 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russians

Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation—donations that were never revealed until Clinton Cash reported them and the New York Times confirmed them.
Hillary Clinton has yet to answer a single question about Uranium One.

1. Washington Post: Bill and Hillary Clinton Have Made at Least $26 Million in Speaking Fees from Entities Who Are Top Clinton Foundation Donors

According to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”
The Post added: “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”

1. Washington Free Beacon: Former Clinton Campaign Operative-Turned-ABC News Host George Stephanopoulos Failed to Disclose His $75,000 Donation and Deep Involvement in the Clinton Foundation Before Launching an Attack Interview Against Clinton Cash Author

Clinton political operative-turned-ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos infamously hid his $75,000 Clinton Foundation donation from ABC News viewers before launching a partisan attack “interview” with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer.
Roundly condemned by numerous journalists, Stephanopoulos apologized and received zero punishment from ABC News. Hillary Clinton’s campaign then used footage from the Stephanopoulos’ attack “interview” with Schweizer in its political campaign videos.
“It was outrageous,” said former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson.
Hillary Clinton has yet to answer whether her campaign coordinated with Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos.

1. CNBC: Clinton Foundation Mega Donor Frank Holmes Claimed He Sold Uranium One Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Russian Transfer—Despite His Company’s Own SEC Filings Proving Otherwise

In a highly embarrassing CNBC grilling, Clinton mega donor and uranium executive Frank Holmes claimed he sold his Uranium One stock well before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. greenlit the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to the Russian government in 2010.
However, according to his company’s, U.S. Global Investors, own 2011 SEC filing, Holmes’ company did, in fact, still hold Uranium One stock, a point he later conceded.

1. Politico: Hillary’s Foundation Accepted $1 Million from Human Rights Violator Morocco for a Lavish Event

“The event is being funded largely by a contribution of at least $1 million from OCP, a phosphate exporter owned by Morocco’s constitutional monarchy, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the event,” reports Politico. “But in 2011, Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of ‘arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.’”
ABC News similarly confirmed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of the unseemly funds.
————
Hillary Clinton has refused to substantively answer a single question related to the above 21 revelations, or the scores of others not reflected above.
In answer to a question about Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton said the book “won’t fly.” The book has remained on the New York Times bestseller list three weeks in a row after debuting at number two.
Now, with Hillary Clinton’s poll ratings at all-time lows, Americans and the nation’s journalists eagerly await the chance to hear Hillary Clinton’s answers to the growing mountain of Clinton Cash-related revelations, investigative findings that have consumed and imperiled her candidacy.
[/COLOR]

 

[Willie99]

"Listen to me America, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms FLOWERS".

Bubba, 1992 during the democratic primary season, when cheating still mattered to the democrats for some silly reason



yes, he would use the exact same words, expressions and finger pointing some 6 years later. To the fucking T

Only in libtard nation

 

[russ1945]

Sorry guys just six new articles today, none of which the trolls will read. These articles are an indication that Hillary is now officially in the bullseye and many jounalists are now focused on her, Bill, the Foundation, and everything they have touched over the years. A troll would not know that this is called connecting the dots. Trouble is there are so many dots but it appears they are coming to the surface and the Clinton's are being exposed for what they really are. It is kind of like popcorn in the popper right now and the bin is beginning to over flow. Keep on popping I say, let's get to the bottom of all of this. Trolls avoid the truth. Is everything posted here true? At the very least everything posted here should be closely investigated and followed through on. Thank goodness for our man Trey. I think he is the Clinton shadow from hell. Power to him.

 

[russ1945]

"Listen to me America, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms FLOWERS".

Bubba, 1992 during the democratic primary season, when cheating still mattered to the democrats for some silly reason



yes, he would use the exact same words, expressions and finger pointing some 6 years later. To the fucking T

Only in libtard nation

And how do you define "is" tells us all we need to know.

 

[Acebb]

I've been nothing but right here for years...

Yeah, that time you announced, in 2011, the Tea Party is finished was spot on!

OH, and your cartoonishly stupid assertions that there were "road blocks" preventing blacks from voting in Florida was another example of you being "nothing but right"

Idiot.

 

[Acebb]

you think I actually read many of these articles? Lol....I've read a few and then look at the headlines....it's all garbage....really no need to disprove anything because even if 5 percent of this was true she would be in prison.

Hysterical.

Yeah you read then and decided that it was "garbage" because, well, you're a fucking idiot.

You understand that the Clinton's have a shell company, that nobody knows exactly what the purpose is, right?

You understand that the Clinton foundation solicited contributions from foreign governments while Hillary was SoS, and you can't even respond to this, right?

You understand that while Hillary was SoS she approved arms sales to countries donating to her foundation, right?

Those are facts. You laughably announcing they are "garbage" reveals that you're a simpleton. Nothing more.

 

[Acebb]

[h=1]Clinton rivals pounce as her ratings fall[/h]
once-sleepy Democratic presidential primary contest is fast coming alive as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s poll numbers fall and a diverse array of long-shot opponents step forward to challenge her.
The recent developments mark a dramatic evolution in the 2016 sweepstakes, which until now has been shaped by the large assortment of hopefuls on the Republican side, where there is no front-runner.

===
Eh, just another old White guy.

 

[vitterd]

There were roadblocks and how is the tea party doing? Lmao.

How do you know what I said in 2011? You registered in 2012. Keep disguising your IP address ghost.....too bad it isn't working. Can you explain more about the banking process to me?

 

[Acebb]

Clinton Foundation accepts Qatari donation amid bribery concerns.

According to the foundation’s Web site, which lists donors based on the amounts of their total contributions organized by ranges, the Qatari committee gave between $250,000 and $500,000. The Persian Gulf nation, known for seeking to build alliances in Washington by giving money to think tanks and other influential organizations, has given the Clinton Foundation between $1 million and $5 million over the years, according to the charity’s Web site.

 

[Acebb]

There were roadblocks and how is the tea party doing? Lmao.

How do you know what I said in 2011? You registered in 2012. Keep disguising your IP address ghost.....too bad it isn't working. Can you explain more about the banking process to me?

There were no roadblocks, anywhere, dumb fuck.

 

[Acebb]

There were roadblocks and how is the tea party doing? Lmao.

How do you know what I said in 2011?

It is so funny you keep repeating this dipshit "roadblocks" bullshit. There were no roadblocks, no proof of roadblocks, and the US Commission on Civil Rights admitted there were no roadblocks. But this retard keeps repeating it.

How is the Tea Party doing? Um, have you looked at the makeup of Congress, dumb fuck? You typing "LMAO" is I guess supposed to be a response? Hilarious.

How do I know what you said in 2011? It was in a thread that was bumped by someone else, idiot.

Kind of like you "knew" what people said here about President Bush. Of course your ghost assertions are all projection.

 

[Acebb]

They are on their next step right now which are polls. Have seen the new Hillary unfavorable polls the sheep are now posting? They did that to Obama in 2012.....didn't work. They are too stupid to understand that unfavorable doesn't translate into voting against her.

The fact that you think polls in 2012 are analogous to polls now about Hillary is fucking hilarious.

Of course when your big political prediction was that Obama would win in 2012 making you "always right" I guess you have to draw false equivalences.

You are so fucking dumb it is laughable.

 

[vitterd]

The fact that you think polls in 2012 are analogous to polls now about Hillary is fucking hilarious.

Of course when your big political prediction was that Obama would win in 2012 making you "always right" I guess you have to draw false equivalences.

You are so fucking dumb it is laughable.

not only did I say he would win, I said how and why and why republicans will lose.

I also said why the same types of polls you are using now have zero to do with who a person votes for in a pres election.

All of this above you.

Im always right and you are always lying.

 

[Acebb]

not only did I say he would win, I said how and why and why republicans will lose.

I also said why the same types of polls you are using now have zero to do with who a person votes for in a pres election.

All of this above you.

Im always right and you are always lying.

You were "right" when you said the Tea Party was finished. I mean, you are so knowledgeable about politics and stuff!

Idiot.

 

[vitterd]

You were "right" when you said the Tea Party was finished. I mean, you are so knowledgeable about politics and stuff!

Idiot.

they are dead....I'm mean they have no impact nationally anymore. The tea party congress failed

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]EXCLUSIVE: Clinton charity took up to $10 MILLION donation from African church which called homosexuals 'devils' - despite Hillary's support for gay marriage[/h]

• Clinton Health Initiative received $1m to $10m from Cameroon Baptist Convention's health board
• Baptist church in African country says homosexuality is on a par with incest and bestiality and is 'a devilish type of thing'
• Hillary launched her campaign with a video featuring a same-sex couple about to get married
• Other donors to imitative include Elton John AIDS foundation - Sir Elton recently married partner David Furnish
• Views of the church are shared by some US denominations but seem directly at odds with those of the Clintons and other donors

By DANIEL BATES FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:18 EST, 4 June 2015 | UPDATED: 13:07 EST, 4 June 2015

4.1kshares

35View comments​

Hillary Clinton's charity accepted a substantial donation from an anti-gay African church which has likened homosexuals to the Devil, Daily Mail Online can reveal.
The 2016 Presidential candidate took money for her sprawling health nonprofit from the Cameroon Baptist Convention whose official policy is that being gay 'contradicts God's purpose for human sexuality'.
The devout Christian organization has in the past compared being gay to committing incest and human trafficking. Its leaders have also railed against US attempts to promote gay rights in Cameroon.
Despite this, the Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Board gave between $1million and $10million between 2010 and this year, according to the latest list of donors from the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

+9


Awkward: Public supporter of same-sex marriage Hillary Clinton's health charity took up to $10 million from a church which says homosexuality should be equated with incest and bestiality

+9


High-profile: The Rev Godwil Ncham, general secretary of the Cameroon Baptist Convention, kneels to receive flowers during a meeting at a church in the country. His church says of homosexuality that it 'contradicts God's purpose for sexuality'.

+9


At odds: Sir Elton John, who married his partner David Furnish as soon as it was possible in the UK last year. His AIDS foundation donated to the Clinton charity. He has campaigned on AIDS, meeting Hillary Clinton's White House rival Lindsey Graham in May in Washington D.C. at a Senate sub-committee hearing on the disease

The disclosure will be awkward for Mrs Clinton who has publicly stated that she supports gay marriage.
Some of her wealthy and influential celebrity supporters are gay including Ellen DeGeneres and Elton John, while many others Democrats are strong advocates for gay rights.
And during her election campaign Mrs Clinton will be heavily relying on them to raise her estimated $1 billion war chest.
The latest roster of donors for CHAI lists dozens of individuals and companies who have given up to $25million and over during the last five years.
But the CBC do not appear as in line with the Clintons' views in the same way as the likes of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who are some of the biggest givers.
Although they are broadly in line with some other denominations in their teachings on sexuality, including among others the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, the CBC are certainly very much at odds with the founder of the Elton John AIDS Fund, which is also a donor.

Clinton's campaign commercial featuring same-sex couples

[h=2]RELATED ARTICLES[/h]

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• Could Hillary get serious opposition as another no-hoper –... Hillary goes to Hollywood! Tobey Maguire and an HBO...

[h=2]SHARE THIS ARTICLE[/h]Share



The CBC's views on gay people are laid out in a letter from December 2013 signed by both the organization's president Joseph Chebonkeng and the general secretary Godwill Ncham.
It reads: 'As a church we uphold the belief that marriage is celebrated between a man and a woman.
'We uphold the principle that sexual intercourse outside of marriage, sexual promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, sexual exploitation, same sex marriage, incest and sexual perversion contradict God's purpose for sexuality.'
In an interview with a Cameroon news website Rev Chebonkeng goes further when asked to comment on the question: 'Spiritually speaking, where do you think the idea of homosexuality is coming from?'
He says: 'It is coming from the Devil because it is not prescribed by the Bible which means that if you practice unorthodox things, these are things that are coming from the dark world and they know what they do with such things, because, it is unthinkable.
'Only recently, Cameroonians began to know that a man can get married to a man. And many people confront me to ask what it means for a man to get married to a man?
'You begin to imagine some devilish type of a thing. I think that Cameroonians should be resolute on issues of homosexuality and these are not practices that are common in our societies.

+9


Same standards?: Hillary Clinton's launch video featured a gay couple who are getting married as it set out how she was running for the White House. But her charity took money from a church opposed to homosexuality

+9


Advocates: Ellen DeGeneres has been a public advocate for both same-sex marriage and for Hillary Clinton, endorsing her campaign almost as soon as it had launched. She married Portia de Rossi in August 2008

+9


Clear views: The Cameroon Baptist Convention issued its position on sexuality in December 2013, saying that it would not support same-sex marriage, and that its principles

+9


Contradictory: Hillary Clinton's endorsement of same-sex marriage would not win her any favors from the Cameroon Baptist Convention. Its president attacked 'the West' for pegging aid to changing anti-gay laws

'These are imported ideas, imported ways of life which are alien to our society. It is time Africans spoke out on this ill.'
He also rails against America and accuses it of trying to 'peg' aid to reforms in Cameroon about gay rights.
He writes: 'What the West is playing on is their assistance which they give African countries and they think that they will peg the conditions for having that aid on the practice of homosexuality or on the legalization of homosexuality.
'I think it is time for Africans and African governments to make a clear cut stand on that at the AU [African Union] summit so that the West should know
'There are other partners that can give us assistance without necessarily pegging that assistance to homosexuality and so they are not the only people that assist us'.
According to the Cameroon Baptist Convention's website it dates back to 1841 and was founded by two Jamaican Missionaries, John Clarks and George Prince.

+9


Work: The CBC Health Board is one of the biggest providers of health services in Cameroon.

+9


Evidence: The official list of donors published by the Clinton Health Foundation shows how the CBC Health Board is in the same category as Elton John's foundation - and the Clinton Foundation itself

It claims to have 1,028 churches with a membership of about 105,000 members and a number of departments including the 'Evangelism and Missionary' wing and the 'Christian Education Department'.
The health wing runs five hospitals and 74 health centers in Cameroon and drug production and distribution center.
Others who have donated money to the organisation include Microsoft, who are featured in its latest newsletter having
The disclosure is the latest of many donor issues confronting Mrs Clinton.
She has already been forced to admit that the CHAI never submitted details on any foreign donations to State Department lawyers for review whilst she was Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013.
'Clinton Cash', a book about donations to her nonprofit and business empire as also raised questions over a diamond deal that went through whilst she was in office.
The Clinton Health initiative did not return requests for comment. The Rev Chebonkeng said he would answer questions by email but did not do so.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ary-s-support-gay-marriage.html#ixzz3cBkxvbYs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]The Good Soldier Clinton[/h]Column: Hillary doubles down on the president’s losing Iraq strategy
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP​

BY: Matthew Continetti
June 5, 2015 5:00 am

As I write, President Obama is losing a war, and there is no reason to believe he is going to change course. Iraq and Syria are likely to grow much worse in the coming months. And Hillary Clinton has supported the president at every point in his failing campaign against the Islamic State.
“Hillary Clinton plants herself firmly with White House in Iraq,” CNN reported in June 2014, recounting a talk where Clinton blamed the rise of the Islamic State on the Maliki government and declared, “We certainly don’t want to fight.”
The next week, asked if President Obama had handled the “JV team” badly, Clinton said, “I would have advised him to do exactly as I believe he is now doing.” Indeed, Clinton added a few days later, “The United States should not be committed to doing very much at all.”
That was before the Islamic State established a twenty-first century Caliphate, massacred religious minorities at Mt. Sinjar, and beheaded American journalists James Foley and Steve Sotloff. The president addressed the nation on September 10, announcing a military campaign involving airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, partnerships with the Iraqi Army and Syrian rebels, counterterrorism operations, and humanitarian relief.
Suddenly Clinton’s noninterventionism disappeared. “President Obama has laid out a strategy for helping the Iraqi government combat this threat and a broad coalition of nations has come together to answer that call,” she said on October 6.
“I think that military action is critical,” she added. “In fact, I would say essential, to try to prevent their further advance and their holding of more territory.”
Eight months later, the Islamic State stretches from the outskirts of Aleppo in the west to Ramadi in the east. The Iraqi Army is in shambles, the campaign to retake Mosul indefinitely postponed, the United States hasn’t hit the terrorists’ headquarters in Raqqa for fear of civilian casualties, the White House is urging networks not to play b-roll of jihadists on the march, and administration officials, in an echo of Vietnam, have brought back the body count. Do you hear Hillary Clinton voicing concern, suggesting changes in policy, warning that the current strategy isn’t working?
Mostly what you hear from Clinton is nothing, a pronounced and unnerving silence—a refusal to weigh in on those many public questions that she and her army of consultants haven’t already poll tested, focus-grouped, picked clean of controversy and novelty and interest. On a paramount matter of national security, she does nothing but parrot the Obama line. “You can’t very well put American or Western troops in,” she said in February.
If Obama were to reverse course and authorize ground troops in Iraq and Syria, of course Hillary Clinton would announce her support. But that’s not going to happen—the aim of Obama’s foreign policy is precisely to avoid large-scale deployments of ground forces. And it’s the very knowledge of her caprice, her cravenness, which is all the more infuriating. Obama at least is an ideologue: He was against the war from the beginning, and wants to extricate the American military from the Middle East. Clinton isn’t interested in national security. She’s interested in political viability.
The real Clinton “narrative” has nothing to do with achievement or competence or public policy. It’s about self-preservation. Clinton was a DLC-friendly moderate when it suited her. Now she’s an Elizabeth Warren pugilist because that’s what’s in. She voted for the Iraq war when it was popular and supported by the foreign policy establishment, opposed the surge for political reasons, backed the American withdrawal in 2011 despite the obvious risks, and renounced her initial vote in 2014. There’s no consistency or logic behind her positions. What they all share is being the politically expedient stance at each particular moment.
Bill Clinton believed in the Third Way, George W. Bush in the Freedom Agenda, and Barack Obama in the New Foundation. What does Hillary Clinton believe in? Getting by. It’s worked so far. But what ought to worry her is that doing the safe thing to win the Democratic primary—identifying as closely as possible with President Obama—may establish the foundations of a competitive general election.
In a devastating article headlined “Why Hillary Can’t Run on Her State Department Record,” Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin tears apart Clinton’s years at Foggy Bottom. It’s a policy-by-policy deconstruction: an “Asia Pivot” to nowhere, a deadlocked Middle East peace process, public diplomacy that’s failed to improve foreign views of the United States, a “Russian Reset” dismissed as “the invention of Hillary Clinton,” opposition to the very sanctions the White House now credits with bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and a secretary of state ignorant of the mounting dangers in postwar Libya—the latest outpost of the Islamic State.
What we have, then, is a presidential frontrunner who won’t lead—who won’t call for an increase in airstrikes, or a relaxation of rules of engagement, or the forward deployment of special operators to call in close air support for our proxies—against a terrorist army that already is inspiring attacks in the United States. A frontrunner who either tacitly supported or actively championed the policies that allowed the Islamic State to form, grow, and kill: nonintervention in Syria and the removal of our troops from Iraq. Whose record is deplorable. Who has outsourced her foreign policy to an unpopular incumbent president.
“I think we turn away from it at our peril,” Clinton said of Iraq last year, “because I think this is a long-term challenge.” The Islamic State doesn’t have to be a long-term challenge for the United States: Al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated once before, and it can be defeated again. But it is certainly a long-term challenge for Clinton. There will come a point, sometime next year, when she will be confronted with the consequences of her actions as secretary of state and tireless champion of Obama. His war will hang over her; she won’t be able to escape it. A large majority already disapproves of his handling of the Islamic State. And no candidate—not Bill Clinton, and certainly not his tone-deaf wife—can spin that record of straw into gold.