You can tell Russ stuff until your blue in the face....he's never gonna get it. Guy is totally lost.Can't spell moron.I even give this idiot the Bugs Bunny Graphic. Are his eyes senile also?
I've already said I would support any of the other named Dem candidates, and Webb or Biden if they get in and win the nomination. And I'd support Kasich, and possibly Rand if he stands firm on his current military thoughts, over Hillary in a General election. If someone else gets in as the R, I'll vote 3rd/4th party. Repeated it over and over, but you are too senile to get it.
^^^^^Yes Guesser is just that and maybe someday he will guess correctly but I doubt it. Meanwhile he just keeps trolling. If you say you would vote for Biden that tells us all we need to know lol. Really. Meanwhile he does not start a thread to support any alternatives to Clinton he just trolls on here and runs down people who are curious and want to know the truth. And that will help Hillary, give me a break. Trey is on her like stink on doo doo. The longer the Dem's wait to find an alternative to Hillary the better from the Republican standpoint. How can they change ships in the middle of a storm. Believe me the storm is coming. Benghazi is the eye of the storm and the Foundation is all around it.
Whoever the next R wingnut is who promises to find out a different truth about Bengahzi, than the other Republican approved reports stated. Sticking with cartoons, since Russ is a cartoon character, Russ is Wil E Coyote, thinking he'll get the Road Runner on his next, fool Proof, Acme sponsored plan. Bless his senile heart.
The funniest thing is this dolt thinks I'm defending Hillary and support Hillary, while I'm actually trying to get him to wise up, and get info from actual, legit sources, and go to actual meaningful things, and they are out there, that would make his silly dot case stronger, rather than just relying on the Brietbart', Callers, etc of the world. But I'll make his day, and use his phrase. He don't Get it and he never will. Allinsky!!!!
Can't spell moron.
I've already said I would support any of the other named Dem candidates, and Webb or Biden if they get in and win the nomination. And I'd support Kasich, and possibly Rand if he stands firm on his current military thoughts, over Hillary in a General election. If someone else gets in as the R, I'll vote 3rd/4th party. Repeated it over and over, but you are too senile to get it.
Sadly, regardless of what Rand Paul might proclaim about how he would command the US Military, he will be no more effective at reining in the Pentagon War Machine than have any of his two predecessors.
So plan on that Indy candidate, because Hillary is a lock for Dems and though I know you love going to the circus, you don't really want to vote for any of the Clown Show
[h=2]5 Hillary Clinton Question Dodges That Will Melt Your Heart[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
June 18, 2015 3:32 pm
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Hillary Clinton hates interacting with media, presumably because she genuinely believes there is avast conspiracy aimed specifically at her and her husband that is dedicated to besmirching the nobel Clinton legacy. Her campaign has barred pool reporters from attending campaign events and has scoffed at reporter demands for questions with Orwellian declaration like “her speech will be her interview.”
In those rare instances when she does deign to take questions from the unwashed press, she typically goes out of her way to avoid providing coherent answers. Because why tarnish your self-anointed title of “voice for everyday Americans” by taking a position on a controversial issue? Why respond to trumped-up charges when it would only embolden the conspiracy mongers?
Hillary’s profound fear of confronting the press and weighing in on major issues is almost endearing. Here are seven Clinton question dodges that are sure to melt your heart.
1. Sydney Blumenthal
Asked about revelations that longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal was running a private intelligence operation in Libya and regularly corresponding with Hillary during her time as secretary of state—while Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation—Hillary had this to say:
2. Iraq
Hillary supported the Iraq War, which most liberals believe was one of the most disastrous decisions in American history. And yet, liberals praised her response to a question about her decision to side with George W. Bush. “I’ve made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple,” Hillary said. “And I have written about it in my book; I’ve talked about it in the past.”
As liberal genius Paul Krugman has explained, politicians who supported the Iraq war either A) have poor judgement, B) love war, or C) will do anything to advance (his or) her political career.
3. Benghazi
When the House committee investigating the Benghazi terror attacks asked: “Can we see all your emails related to Democratic messaging in the wake of the attacks?” Clinton responded: “Thanks, but no.”
4. Unions
Someone tried to asked Clinton how, if she supports unions so much, she planned to boost union membership in the South, where “right-to-work” laws (and lucrative, job-creating manufacturing projects) prevail. Hillary was having none of it:
Hillary won’t even come out and explicitly endorse a $15-an-hour minimum wage, merely stating her support for workers’ “fight” to raise the minimum wage. Democrats looking for bold leadership might want to consider Bernie Sanders, a committed liberal who speaks his mind and leads from the heart.
5. Trade
Hillary really doesn’t like to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. She has gone out of her way to avoid taking a position, even though she repeatedly praised the TPP deal as secretary of state. Her best dodges include:
June 18, 2015 3:32 pm
SHARE
TWEET
Hillary Clinton dodges a shoe.
Hillary Clinton hates interacting with media, presumably because she genuinely believes there is avast conspiracy aimed specifically at her and her husband that is dedicated to besmirching the nobel Clinton legacy. Her campaign has barred pool reporters from attending campaign events and has scoffed at reporter demands for questions with Orwellian declaration like “her speech will be her interview.”
In those rare instances when she does deign to take questions from the unwashed press, she typically goes out of her way to avoid providing coherent answers. Because why tarnish your self-anointed title of “voice for everyday Americans” by taking a position on a controversial issue? Why respond to trumped-up charges when it would only embolden the conspiracy mongers?
Hillary’s profound fear of confronting the press and weighing in on major issues is almost endearing. Here are seven Clinton question dodges that are sure to melt your heart.
1. Sydney Blumenthal
Asked about revelations that longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal was running a private intelligence operation in Libya and regularly corresponding with Hillary during her time as secretary of state—while Blumenthal was employed by the Clinton Foundation—Hillary had this to say:
I have many, many old friends, and I always think that it’s important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you got into politics, to understand what’s on their minds. He’s been a friend of mine for a long time. He’s sent me unsolicited e-mails, which I passed on in some instances. I see that as part of the give and take. When you’re in the public eye, when you’re in an official position, I think you do have to work to ensure that you’re not caught in a bubble. I hear from a certain small group of people and I’m going to continue to talk to my old friends, whoever they are.
A subsequent Free Beacon analysis found that the Clintons have some very sketchy “old friends.”
2. Iraq
Hillary supported the Iraq War, which most liberals believe was one of the most disastrous decisions in American history. And yet, liberals praised her response to a question about her decision to side with George W. Bush. “I’ve made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple,” Hillary said. “And I have written about it in my book; I’ve talked about it in the past.”
As liberal genius Paul Krugman has explained, politicians who supported the Iraq war either A) have poor judgement, B) love war, or C) will do anything to advance (his or) her political career.
3. Benghazi
When the House committee investigating the Benghazi terror attacks asked: “Can we see all your emails related to Democratic messaging in the wake of the attacks?” Clinton responded: “Thanks, but no.”
The State Department or Hillary Clinton withheld emails from the House Benghazi committee that explicitly mentioned Democratic messaging following the 2012 terrorist attack, even though the panel had specifically asked for those kinds of correspondence to be turned over, POLITICO has learned.
Complying with congressional investigations is something a commoner might do, but we’re talking about the Clintons. They’re absurdly rich and there is a vast conspiracy against them.
4. Unions
Someone tried to asked Clinton how, if she supports unions so much, she planned to boost union membership in the South, where “right-to-work” laws (and lucrative, job-creating manufacturing projects) prevail. Hillary was having none of it:
Hillary won’t even come out and explicitly endorse a $15-an-hour minimum wage, merely stating her support for workers’ “fight” to raise the minimum wage. Democrats looking for bold leadership might want to consider Bernie Sanders, a committed liberal who speaks his mind and leads from the heart.
5. Trade
Hillary really doesn’t like to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. She has gone out of her way to avoid taking a position, even though she repeatedly praised the TPP deal as secretary of state. Her best dodges include:
- “I have been for trade agreements, I have been against trade agreements.”
- “The questions that were raised are ones that have to be answered.”
- “[Fast-track authority] is a process issue. The issue for me is what’s in the deal.”
- “I believe that you take whatever happens to you in a negotiation, and you leverage it.”
I for one am pleased to see RUSS's dedication to HillaryHate pretty much streamlined down to a single ongoing Thread
Would be a bit more honest though if he were to return to the very post in this here thread and replace the words, "A couple of years after" with the words "A couple of months before"
Carry on
Would be a bit more honest though if he were to return to the very post in this here thread and replace the words, "A couple of years after" with the words "A couple of months before"
Carry on
[h=1]Sources: Clinton confidant who sent Libya memos paid $200G by Brock network[/h]
By Judson Berger
Published June 19, 2015FoxNews.com
Facebook169 Twitter330 livefyre3727 Email Print
NOW PLAYINGBlumenthal supplies Hillary's enemies with new ammunition
Never autoplay videos
The Clinton confidant under scrutiny on Capitol Hill over detailed Libya memos he sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers earlier this week he has been pulling in $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock's media operation, congressional sources tell FoxNews.com.
The figure is far higher than initially reported.
While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. Republicans' rationale for the questioning was that his financial and political interests are important context, at a time when he was sending high-level guidance to Clinton.
Politico.com first reported that Republicans grilled Blumenthal on his work for Brock's groups. But while the report said Blumenthal was making more than $10,000 a month, congressional sources say he acknowledged during the deposition he actually had a $200,000-a-year contract.
The money was in addition to the $10,000 a month he was getting for work with the Clinton Foundation.
"He was getting, from Clinton, Inc., $320,000 a year," one source told FoxNews.com.
The Brock-founded groups are not actually part of the Clinton empire, though Brock is a Clinton ally. The source said Blumenthal has been working with Media Matters, American Bridge and Correct the Record. Another congressional source, though, told FoxNews.com the contract was specifically with Media Matters.
Though it's unclear exactly what Blumenthal was paid to do, Politico reported his work entailed giving high-level strategy and messaging guidance, and the Benghazi debate was likely part of that. The groups above have busily defended then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from GOP broadsides.
Emails related to this work surfaced in the package of documents delivered to the Benghazi committee ahead of Tuesday's session -- emails that weren't part of the initial package of documents handed over by the State Department.
One of those emails to Clinton linked several Media Matters posts on Benghazi, essentially defending the State Department.
FoxNews.com is told one of them read: "Got all this done, complete refutation on Libya smear." The email said, "Philippe can circulate these links." Philippe Reines was a senior adviser to Clinton.
Asked for comment on the deposition, and on Blumenthal's payments, Brock blasted the committee's latest inquiry.
"Despite the fact that the conclusions of nine congressional committee reports and the findings from an independent review board don't support his political agenda, Chairman [Trey] Gowdy keeps doubling down and expanding his taxpayer funded fishing expedition in the hopes of undermining Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign," Brock told FoxNews.com in a statement. "This week's spectacle is the latest proof that he is failing."
FoxNews.com has reached out to Blumenthal's attorney for comment.
Blumenthal's deposition lasted most of the day on Tuesday. FoxNews.com is told the Brock work "came up," though the committee did not spend hours grilling him about it.
The committee sought to interview Blumenthal over his role sending detailed memos on Libya to Clinton in 2011 and 2012.
The New York Times first reported on Blumenthal's memos and said the information was coming from "business associates" Blumenthal was advising, including former CIA official Tyler Drumheller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the committee, told Fox News earlier this week that the memos themselves were actually sent by Drumheller. He said Blumenthal didn't write them, and was just passing on the "unvetted, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated intelligence."
After the deposition on Tuesday, Blumenthal said he answered every question over the course of nine hours. He said the emails were mostly "old news" and hopes he cleared up "misconceptions."
He said he wasn't involved in any of the administration's decision-making, and attributed his appearance before the committee to "politics."
Democrats were fuming over Tuesday's session and have called on Gowdy to release the transcript of the deposition. Further, they say the latest documents reveal no "smoking gun" about the Benghazi attacks, which killed four Americans.
n fact, they hardly relate to Benghazi at all," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.
FoxNews.com is told Blumenthal only disclosed his payments from Brock's groups on Tuesday after he was specifically asked about them -- and that he didn't initially disclose them when asked about his sources of income.
"He had to be prompted," a source said.
By Judson Berger
Published June 19, 2015FoxNews.com
Facebook169 Twitter330 livefyre3727 Email Print
NOW PLAYINGBlumenthal supplies Hillary's enemies with new ammunition
Never autoplay videos
The Clinton confidant under scrutiny on Capitol Hill over detailed Libya memos he sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers earlier this week he has been pulling in $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock's media operation, congressional sources tell FoxNews.com.
The figure is far higher than initially reported.
While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. Republicans' rationale for the questioning was that his financial and political interests are important context, at a time when he was sending high-level guidance to Clinton.
Politico.com first reported that Republicans grilled Blumenthal on his work for Brock's groups. But while the report said Blumenthal was making more than $10,000 a month, congressional sources say he acknowledged during the deposition he actually had a $200,000-a-year contract.
The money was in addition to the $10,000 a month he was getting for work with the Clinton Foundation.
"He was getting, from Clinton, Inc., $320,000 a year," one source told FoxNews.com.
The Brock-founded groups are not actually part of the Clinton empire, though Brock is a Clinton ally. The source said Blumenthal has been working with Media Matters, American Bridge and Correct the Record. Another congressional source, though, told FoxNews.com the contract was specifically with Media Matters.
Though it's unclear exactly what Blumenthal was paid to do, Politico reported his work entailed giving high-level strategy and messaging guidance, and the Benghazi debate was likely part of that. The groups above have busily defended then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from GOP broadsides.
Emails related to this work surfaced in the package of documents delivered to the Benghazi committee ahead of Tuesday's session -- emails that weren't part of the initial package of documents handed over by the State Department.
One of those emails to Clinton linked several Media Matters posts on Benghazi, essentially defending the State Department.
FoxNews.com is told one of them read: "Got all this done, complete refutation on Libya smear." The email said, "Philippe can circulate these links." Philippe Reines was a senior adviser to Clinton.
Asked for comment on the deposition, and on Blumenthal's payments, Brock blasted the committee's latest inquiry.
"Despite the fact that the conclusions of nine congressional committee reports and the findings from an independent review board don't support his political agenda, Chairman [Trey] Gowdy keeps doubling down and expanding his taxpayer funded fishing expedition in the hopes of undermining Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign," Brock told FoxNews.com in a statement. "This week's spectacle is the latest proof that he is failing."
FoxNews.com has reached out to Blumenthal's attorney for comment.
Blumenthal's deposition lasted most of the day on Tuesday. FoxNews.com is told the Brock work "came up," though the committee did not spend hours grilling him about it.
The committee sought to interview Blumenthal over his role sending detailed memos on Libya to Clinton in 2011 and 2012.
The New York Times first reported on Blumenthal's memos and said the information was coming from "business associates" Blumenthal was advising, including former CIA official Tyler Drumheller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the committee, told Fox News earlier this week that the memos themselves were actually sent by Drumheller. He said Blumenthal didn't write them, and was just passing on the "unvetted, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated intelligence."
After the deposition on Tuesday, Blumenthal said he answered every question over the course of nine hours. He said the emails were mostly "old news" and hopes he cleared up "misconceptions."
He said he wasn't involved in any of the administration's decision-making, and attributed his appearance before the committee to "politics."
Democrats were fuming over Tuesday's session and have called on Gowdy to release the transcript of the deposition. Further, they say the latest documents reveal no "smoking gun" about the Benghazi attacks, which killed four Americans.
n fact, they hardly relate to Benghazi at all," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.
FoxNews.com is told Blumenthal only disclosed his payments from Brock's groups on Tuesday after he was specifically asked about them -- and that he didn't initially disclose them when asked about his sources of income.
"He had to be prompted," a source said.
M, JUN 19, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Hillary Clinton kept calling Nevada reporter Jon Ralston "Joe" in a recent interview:
Hillary Clinton kept calling Nevada reporter Jon Ralston "Joe" in a recent interview:
[h=1]TRUMP CAMPAIGN RESPONDS TO HILLARY LINKING HIM TO SOUTH CAROLINA SHOOTING: ‘SHE MUST BE NERVOUS’[/h]
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
by ALEX SWOYER19 Jun 2015Washington, DC936
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[h=2]GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump says he thinks Hillary Clinton lost all credibility when she blamed him for the massacre at a church in South Carolina.[/h]The 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner hinted that the shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina is in some way connected to Donald Trump’s recent presidential announcement. Clinton told an interviewer:
“They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said in his announcement speech.
A spokesperson said Trump sends his prayers and condolences to South Carolina residents.
Following the violent incident, Trump canceled a sold out campaign event in South Carolina out of respect for the grieving.
“At this time of national sorrow, a responsible leader should be focused on uniting and healing the country,” the spokesman said, adding:
“She must be nervous about something,” he added, hinting Clinton must feel threatened by Trump’s recent media popularity following his formal White House bid.
[/COLOR]
438
30
223
by ALEX SWOYER19 Jun 2015Washington, DC936
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[h=2]GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump says he thinks Hillary Clinton lost all credibility when she blamed him for the massacre at a church in South Carolina.[/h]The 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner hinted that the shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina is in some way connected to Donald Trump’s recent presidential announcement. Clinton told an interviewer:
Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable. I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.
Clinton was referring to Trump’s announcement speech, when he commented about the illegal aliens coming across the southern border from Mexico.
“They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said in his announcement speech.
A spokesperson said Trump sends his prayers and condolences to South Carolina residents.
Following the violent incident, Trump canceled a sold out campaign event in South Carolina out of respect for the grieving.
“At this time of national sorrow, a responsible leader should be focused on uniting and healing the country,” the spokesman said, adding:
Mr. Trump believes that Hillary Clinton does not have any credibility when she blames words for violence. This is the same politician who lied to the world after she failed to take proper steps to secure the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and falsely blamed the radical Islamic attack on a YouTube video. This is the same person who illegally deleted her emails after getting a subpoena from the U.S. Congress.
Also, it is “totally inappropriate” for Clinton to use this tragedy as a way to attack a political opponent, the spokesman says.
“She must be nervous about something,” he added, hinting Clinton must feel threatened by Trump’s recent media popularity following his formal White House bid.
[/COLOR]
[h=2]Harassment Complaints Tripled At State Department Under Clinton, Kerry[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 19, 2015 9:54 am
Harassment complaints nearly tripled at the State Department under the watch of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, according to a State Department watchdog report released Thursday.
The Washington Times reports that harassment complaints hit 88 formal claims during Clinton’s third year at State in 2011. This number jumped to 248 formal claims just three years later in 2014 with Kerry serving as secretary. Hundreds more informal harassment complaints were also filed during this time.
Last year, more than one-third, or 38 percent of complaints filed by employees, dealt with sex discrimination or reprisals. An additional 43 percent of complaints were made up of alleged harassment dealing with unfair hiring or promotions.
Despite the spike in harassment claims at the State Department, there is no mandatory training program in place dealing with the issue.
“A significant increase in reported harassment inquiries in the Department of State over the past few fiscal years supports the need for mandatory harassment training,” the department’s inspector general said.
Due to the department’s non-existent mandatory harassment training programs, one of the biggest recommendations includes periodic training for every employee at the State Department.
“The Office of Civil Rights, in coordination with the Bureau of Human Resources and the Foreign Service Institute, should mandate periodic harassment training for all Department employees,” the report stated.
TWEET
Hillary Clinton and John Kerry / AP
BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 19, 2015 9:54 am
Harassment complaints nearly tripled at the State Department under the watch of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, according to a State Department watchdog report released Thursday.
The Washington Times reports that harassment complaints hit 88 formal claims during Clinton’s third year at State in 2011. This number jumped to 248 formal claims just three years later in 2014 with Kerry serving as secretary. Hundreds more informal harassment complaints were also filed during this time.
Last year, more than one-third, or 38 percent of complaints filed by employees, dealt with sex discrimination or reprisals. An additional 43 percent of complaints were made up of alleged harassment dealing with unfair hiring or promotions.
Despite the spike in harassment claims at the State Department, there is no mandatory training program in place dealing with the issue.
“A significant increase in reported harassment inquiries in the Department of State over the past few fiscal years supports the need for mandatory harassment training,” the department’s inspector general said.
Due to the department’s non-existent mandatory harassment training programs, one of the biggest recommendations includes periodic training for every employee at the State Department.
“The Office of Civil Rights, in coordination with the Bureau of Human Resources and the Foreign Service Institute, should mandate periodic harassment training for all Department employees,” the report stated.
[h=2]NLRB Dings Union for Photo ID Requirements[/h]
[h=2]Suit: Union Withholds Teacher’s Charitable Contribution[/h]
[h=2]Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor[/h]Senate report: Peter Lowy held $68 million in offshore tax haven
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
June 19, 2015 12:00 pm
Hillary Clinton will attend a $2,700-a-plate luncheon on Friday at the Beverly Hills home of a man who was investigated by the Senate for hiding $68 million in assets in an offshore tax haven.
Peter Lowy, who was born in Australia but is a U.S. citizen, is chief executive officer of theWestfield Group, one of the world’s largest owners of shopping malls. The company was founded by his father, Frank Lowy, and is controlled by the Lowy family.
The family came under fire in 2008 when a report from then-Sens. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) and Norm Coleman (R., Minn.) alleged that the Lowys were hiding $68 million in a Lichtenstein tax haven called the LGT Group.
The relationship between the Lowys and the LGT Group began in 1997 when the family started a Lichtenstein foundation worth $54 million. It grew to $68 million by 2001 when the foundation was dissolved.
The information came during an investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations into LGT Group and others that were being used as tax shelters.
“LGT was aware that Mr. Lowy and his sons were hiding assets in the new foundation,” according to the report.
Lawyers for Lowy maintained that he did nothing against the law and that “businesses all over the world use a variety of tax structures to legitimately protect their assets.” He said all the money was given to charity.
Lowy, however, refused to cooperate with the Senate investigation. He invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during a hearing held by the committee.
“Senator, I’m sorry, I mean no disrespect. But on the advice of my counsel I assert my rights under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution not to answer any questions,” said Lowy.
His lack of cooperation did not end there. Levin said the Lowy family refused to hand over documentation of the charitable donations to his subcommittee.
Lowy was also accused during the hearing by Coleman of taking “a red-eye flight to Australia” to avoid a subpoena.
An investigation into the Lowy finances carried out by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) led to further efforts in Bermuda to hide assets that should have been taxed by the United States.
The Friday fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is not the beginning of the Lowy relationship with the Clinton family. The earliest recorded instance came in 1995, when Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign received donations from multiple Lowy family members.
Both Lowy and his wife Janine Lowy also made the maximum allowed contribution to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. They also both donated to Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign. The couple’s political giving to federal candidates totals over $1 million and remains active.
Lowy has also given between $50,001 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and made donations as recently as last year. His company, the Westfield Corporation, has also made Clinton Foundation donations in the same range.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the Friday event.
[h=2]Suit: Union Withholds Teacher’s Charitable Contribution[/h]
[h=2]Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor[/h]Senate report: Peter Lowy held $68 million in offshore tax haven
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Brent Scher
June 19, 2015 12:00 pm
Hillary Clinton will attend a $2,700-a-plate luncheon on Friday at the Beverly Hills home of a man who was investigated by the Senate for hiding $68 million in assets in an offshore tax haven.
Peter Lowy, who was born in Australia but is a U.S. citizen, is chief executive officer of theWestfield Group, one of the world’s largest owners of shopping malls. The company was founded by his father, Frank Lowy, and is controlled by the Lowy family.
The family came under fire in 2008 when a report from then-Sens. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) and Norm Coleman (R., Minn.) alleged that the Lowys were hiding $68 million in a Lichtenstein tax haven called the LGT Group.
The relationship between the Lowys and the LGT Group began in 1997 when the family started a Lichtenstein foundation worth $54 million. It grew to $68 million by 2001 when the foundation was dissolved.
The information came during an investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations into LGT Group and others that were being used as tax shelters.
“LGT was aware that Mr. Lowy and his sons were hiding assets in the new foundation,” according to the report.
Lawyers for Lowy maintained that he did nothing against the law and that “businesses all over the world use a variety of tax structures to legitimately protect their assets.” He said all the money was given to charity.
Lowy, however, refused to cooperate with the Senate investigation. He invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during a hearing held by the committee.
“Senator, I’m sorry, I mean no disrespect. But on the advice of my counsel I assert my rights under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution not to answer any questions,” said Lowy.
His lack of cooperation did not end there. Levin said the Lowy family refused to hand over documentation of the charitable donations to his subcommittee.
Lowy was also accused during the hearing by Coleman of taking “a red-eye flight to Australia” to avoid a subpoena.
An investigation into the Lowy finances carried out by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) led to further efforts in Bermuda to hide assets that should have been taxed by the United States.
The Friday fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is not the beginning of the Lowy relationship with the Clinton family. The earliest recorded instance came in 1995, when Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign received donations from multiple Lowy family members.
Both Lowy and his wife Janine Lowy also made the maximum allowed contribution to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. They also both donated to Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign. The couple’s political giving to federal candidates totals over $1 million and remains active.
Lowy has also given between $50,001 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and made donations as recently as last year. His company, the Westfield Corporation, has also made Clinton Foundation donations in the same range.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the Friday event.
[h=2]Report: Blumenthal’s Benghazi Emails Withheld from Select Committee[/h]Media Matters paid Clinton operative $10,000 per month
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
June 18, 2015 12:04 pm
Emails showing Democratic operative Sid Blumenthal directing public relations efforts for Hillary Clinton in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attacks were withheld from a select committee investigating the attacks,Politico reported on Wednesday.
Blumenthal sent four posts from the Democratic research outfit Media Matters to Clinton on October 10, 2012, emails show. Blumenthal was on Media Matters’ payroll at the time, Politico reported, receiving about $10,000 a month from the group in addition to similar compensation from the Clinton Foundation.
Members of the select committee on the Benghazi attacks grilled Blumenthal on Tuesday about his work for State and Media Matters and his role in efforts to spin the administration’s response to the attacks.
SHARE
TWEET
A burnt car is parked at the U.S. consulate, which was attacked and set on fire by gunmen, in Benghazi / Reuters
BY: Lachlan Markay
June 18, 2015 12:04 pm
Emails showing Democratic operative Sid Blumenthal directing public relations efforts for Hillary Clinton in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attacks were withheld from a select committee investigating the attacks,Politico reported on Wednesday.
Blumenthal sent four posts from the Democratic research outfit Media Matters to Clinton on October 10, 2012, emails show. Blumenthal was on Media Matters’ payroll at the time, Politico reported, receiving about $10,000 a month from the group in addition to similar compensation from the Clinton Foundation.
“Got all this done,” Blumenthal wrote in the Oct. 10, 2012, email to Clinton, according to the description of the message. “Complete refutation on Libya smear. Philippe can circulate these links. Sid”.
Blumenthal was referring to four posts by Media Matters — a left-leaning, pro-Clinton group — that blasted the Benghazi responses from then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republicans, which he pasted in the body of the email. Blumenthal, a Clinton ally, is close to the group’s founder David Brock, another Clinton confidant — and has advised the organization, and others like it, on and off over the past few years.
“Philippe” likely refers to Clinton’s top spokesperson, Philippe Reines.
According to a separate Politico story, “the emails were not included in documents originally turned over by the State Department. The Select Committee on Benghazi obtained the emails through subpoena.”Blumenthal was referring to four posts by Media Matters — a left-leaning, pro-Clinton group — that blasted the Benghazi responses from then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republicans, which he pasted in the body of the email. Blumenthal, a Clinton ally, is close to the group’s founder David Brock, another Clinton confidant — and has advised the organization, and others like it, on and off over the past few years.
“Philippe” likely refers to Clinton’s top spokesperson, Philippe Reines.
Members of the select committee on the Benghazi attacks grilled Blumenthal on Tuesday about his work for State and Media Matters and his role in efforts to spin the administration’s response to the attacks.
In addition to Blumenthal’s role at Media Matters, he was involved with the Brock-founded groups American Bridge and Correct the Record, he worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and then afterward at the $2 billion Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation (which paid Blumenthal about $10,000 a month even as he was on Brock’s payroll). During this time, he also advised a pair of businesses seeking potentially lucrative contracts in Libya, while sharing intelligence on the country with Clinton while she was secretary of state.
Republicans privy to the Benghazi committee’s strategy say it’s important to map out Blumenthal’s many affiliations in order to understand the motivations for the counsel he provided to Clinton, and the degree to which she relied on it. But Democrats argue that Tuesday’s questioning shows that Republicans are conducting a politicized fishing expedition intended to damage Clinton’s presidential campaign and its supporters.
Republicans privy to the Benghazi committee’s strategy say it’s important to map out Blumenthal’s many affiliations in order to understand the motivations for the counsel he provided to Clinton, and the degree to which she relied on it. But Democrats argue that Tuesday’s questioning shows that Republicans are conducting a politicized fishing expedition intended to damage Clinton’s presidential campaign and its supporters.
[h=2]Top Clinton Campaign Lawyer Helped Open Big Money Floodgates[/h]Clinton has claimed she wants to reduce the amount of money in politics
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 22, 2015 5:00 am
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer was a key figure in a fight that allowed wealthy individuals to drastically increase the amount of money they could give to party committees, despite pledges by Clinton to combat money in politics.
As the Clinton team was shaping up earlier this year, they quietly brought aboard Marc Elias, a top campaign finance lawyer. Elias, who is a partner at the Washington D.C. law firm Perkins Coie and was general counsel for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, was just one month removed from drafting a provision that contradicted Clinton’s stated promises.
Elias was called in by the office of Harry Reid late last year to help craft a provision added into the $1.1 trillion spending bill at the last minute. The provision effectively raised the amount of money donors can give to political parties from $97,400 to $777,600.
The sudden addition of the provision surprised legislators on both sides of the aisle. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) commented at the time she did not know about it until one day before the vote on the year-end bill.
Politico reported that Elias’ firm, Perkins Coie, could benefit from the provision’s stealth implementation, which also allows for higher contributions to the legal fees of the committees.
Alongside Elias, Perkins Coie is led by Bob Bauer, who served as chief counsel to the Obama White House from January 2010 to June 2011. The firm, which is described as having a “stranglehold” on Democratic clients, has raked in more than $40 million in legal fees since 2000 from clients ranging from Obama to the Democratic National Committee.
The Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, all of whom use the services of Elias, denied that he was working on their behalf as he drafted the provision.
Clinton has said ‘Revitalizing Our Democracy’ depends upon battling money in politics.
While the details during her official campaign kickoff speech this past Saturday were vague, she reiterated that she would support a constitutional amendment to undue the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
“Democracy can’t be just for billionaires and corporations,” Clinton said during her speech. “If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.”
While Clinton has said that decreasing money in politics will be a focus of her campaign, she began meeting months ago behind closed doors with people capable of donating vast amounts of money to super PACs that support her.
The Wall Street Journal reported in May that Clinton began ramping up her efforts to raise money by attending her first private meeting with potential big money donors and supporters of Priorities USA.
During that same week, Clinton attended a private gathering at the home of the billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer. During the 2014 elections, Steyer pumped $73 million into numerous campaigns.
Some progressive activists criticized these meetings as hypocritical, CNN reported at the time.
An anonymous Clinton campaign official responded to the criticism by saying that Clinton needs to meet with Super PAC mega-donors to compete with Republicans.
“With some Republican candidates reportedly setting up and outsourcing their entire campaign to super PACs and the Koch Brothers pledging $1 billion alone for the 2016 campaign, Democrats have to have the resources to fight back,” the Clinton campaign official told CNN. “There is too much at stake for our future for Democrats to unilaterally disarm.”
Requests for comment from the Clinton campaign, Elias, and Perkins Coie were not returned
SHARE
TWEET
Marc Elias / AP
BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 22, 2015 5:00 am
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer was a key figure in a fight that allowed wealthy individuals to drastically increase the amount of money they could give to party committees, despite pledges by Clinton to combat money in politics.
As the Clinton team was shaping up earlier this year, they quietly brought aboard Marc Elias, a top campaign finance lawyer. Elias, who is a partner at the Washington D.C. law firm Perkins Coie and was general counsel for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, was just one month removed from drafting a provision that contradicted Clinton’s stated promises.
Elias was called in by the office of Harry Reid late last year to help craft a provision added into the $1.1 trillion spending bill at the last minute. The provision effectively raised the amount of money donors can give to political parties from $97,400 to $777,600.
The sudden addition of the provision surprised legislators on both sides of the aisle. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) commented at the time she did not know about it until one day before the vote on the year-end bill.
Politico reported that Elias’ firm, Perkins Coie, could benefit from the provision’s stealth implementation, which also allows for higher contributions to the legal fees of the committees.
Alongside Elias, Perkins Coie is led by Bob Bauer, who served as chief counsel to the Obama White House from January 2010 to June 2011. The firm, which is described as having a “stranglehold” on Democratic clients, has raked in more than $40 million in legal fees since 2000 from clients ranging from Obama to the Democratic National Committee.
The Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, all of whom use the services of Elias, denied that he was working on their behalf as he drafted the provision.
Clinton has said ‘Revitalizing Our Democracy’ depends upon battling money in politics.
While the details during her official campaign kickoff speech this past Saturday were vague, she reiterated that she would support a constitutional amendment to undue the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
“Democracy can’t be just for billionaires and corporations,” Clinton said during her speech. “If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.”
While Clinton has said that decreasing money in politics will be a focus of her campaign, she began meeting months ago behind closed doors with people capable of donating vast amounts of money to super PACs that support her.
The Wall Street Journal reported in May that Clinton began ramping up her efforts to raise money by attending her first private meeting with potential big money donors and supporters of Priorities USA.
During that same week, Clinton attended a private gathering at the home of the billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer. During the 2014 elections, Steyer pumped $73 million into numerous campaigns.
Some progressive activists criticized these meetings as hypocritical, CNN reported at the time.
An anonymous Clinton campaign official responded to the criticism by saying that Clinton needs to meet with Super PAC mega-donors to compete with Republicans.
“With some Republican candidates reportedly setting up and outsourcing their entire campaign to super PACs and the Koch Brothers pledging $1 billion alone for the 2016 campaign, Democrats have to have the resources to fight back,” the Clinton campaign official told CNN. “There is too much at stake for our future for Democrats to unilaterally disarm.”
Requests for comment from the Clinton campaign, Elias, and Perkins Coie were not returned
