[h=1]Donald Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems[/h] By Nick Gass
6/16/15 3:12 PM EDT
Donald Trump jumped into the crowded and rowdy Republican presidential field on Tuesday, but the business magnate has astutely played both sides of the aisle for years, and has been especially cozy — financially and personally — with Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump’s vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.
Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.
In another sign of their closeness, Clinton attended Trump’s 2005 wedding to current wife Melania Knauss at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, along with the likes of Katie Couric, Billy Joel and then-“American Idol” judge Simon Cowell. (According to People, Clinton had front-pew seating. Though Bill missed the ceremony itself, he did show up to the reception.)
[h=3]Donald Trump: The large lifestyle behind the bombastic candidate[/h] POLITICO STAFF
She wasn’t the only Democratic beneficiary of Trump’s wealth. Trump donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $20,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 cycle, effectively buoying the election prospects of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, respectively.
Just $1,000 of Trump’s money in the 2006 cycle went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The last time Trump considered a White House run in 2011, reporters seized upon the fact that he has given most of his money to Democrats and Democratic causes, according to records.
Trump defended his donations to New York Democrats in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that April, proclaiming that in the state, “everyone is Democratic” and implying that to donate otherwise would be waste of his money.
“So, what am I going to do, contribute to Republicans? Am I going to contribute to, I mean, one thing I’m not stupid. Am I going to contribute to a Republican for my whole life when they get, they run against some Democrat. And the most they can get is one percent of the vote,” he said, noting his “good relationship” with and donations to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Trump last donated to Schumer directly in 2010, though he had made donations ranging from $250 to $2,000 since 1996.
“I mean, I’ve contributed to Schumer, I contribute — I’ve known Schumer for many, many years. And I have a good relationship with him. The fact is, that I think it is time maybe that we all do get along,” he told Hannity.
Beginning with the 2012 cycle, however, financial disclosures show that Trump has donated exclusively to Republican candidates and groups.
Also on POLITICO
[h=3]The 10 best lines from Donald Trump's announcement speech[/h] ADAM B. LERNER
Trump mentioned neither Clinton nor Schumer in his Tuesday announcement speech. In fact, the only time Trump uttered the word “Clinton” was not in reference to the Democratic frontrunner, but rather part of the name of the New York state correctional facility from whence two men escaped earlier this month.
“Through stupidity, in a very, very hardcore prison, interestingly named Clinton, two vicious murderers, two vicious people escaped, and nobody knows where they are,” Trump said.
6/16/15 3:12 PM EDT
Donald Trump jumped into the crowded and rowdy Republican presidential field on Tuesday, but the business magnate has astutely played both sides of the aisle for years, and has been especially cozy — financially and personally — with Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump’s vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.
Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.
In another sign of their closeness, Clinton attended Trump’s 2005 wedding to current wife Melania Knauss at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, along with the likes of Katie Couric, Billy Joel and then-“American Idol” judge Simon Cowell. (According to People, Clinton had front-pew seating. Though Bill missed the ceremony itself, he did show up to the reception.)
[h=3]Donald Trump: The large lifestyle behind the bombastic candidate[/h] POLITICO STAFF
She wasn’t the only Democratic beneficiary of Trump’s wealth. Trump donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $20,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 cycle, effectively buoying the election prospects of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, respectively.
Just $1,000 of Trump’s money in the 2006 cycle went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The last time Trump considered a White House run in 2011, reporters seized upon the fact that he has given most of his money to Democrats and Democratic causes, according to records.
Trump defended his donations to New York Democrats in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that April, proclaiming that in the state, “everyone is Democratic” and implying that to donate otherwise would be waste of his money.
“So, what am I going to do, contribute to Republicans? Am I going to contribute to, I mean, one thing I’m not stupid. Am I going to contribute to a Republican for my whole life when they get, they run against some Democrat. And the most they can get is one percent of the vote,” he said, noting his “good relationship” with and donations to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Trump last donated to Schumer directly in 2010, though he had made donations ranging from $250 to $2,000 since 1996.
“I mean, I’ve contributed to Schumer, I contribute — I’ve known Schumer for many, many years. And I have a good relationship with him. The fact is, that I think it is time maybe that we all do get along,” he told Hannity.
Beginning with the 2012 cycle, however, financial disclosures show that Trump has donated exclusively to Republican candidates and groups.
Also on POLITICO
[h=3]The 10 best lines from Donald Trump's announcement speech[/h] ADAM B. LERNER
Trump mentioned neither Clinton nor Schumer in his Tuesday announcement speech. In fact, the only time Trump uttered the word “Clinton” was not in reference to the Democratic frontrunner, but rather part of the name of the New York state correctional facility from whence two men escaped earlier this month.
“Through stupidity, in a very, very hardcore prison, interestingly named Clinton, two vicious murderers, two vicious people escaped, and nobody knows where they are,” Trump said.
[h=2]The Fax of Life[/h]Column: Hillary’s emails indict the self-regarding culture of Washington
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Matthew Continetti
July 3, 2015 5:00 am
So she doesn’t know how to use a fax machine. Big whoop. If there is a “smoking gun” in the 3,000 pages of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department this week, it’s not in her technological ineptitude, or her calling her hairdresser “Santa,” or her continuing to encourage Sid Blumenthal to offer bad advice, or her fetish for ice tea, or her bizarre demand that John Podesta wear socks to bed. The most revealing dispatch, the one dripping with unintended irony and status detail and sanctimony dressed as social conscience, is the email Lynn Forester de Rothschild, centimillionaire, addressed to Clinton on the morning of August 26, 2009. It is 122 preening and obsequious words long. I reprint it here:
“He had lots to say which might be of interest,” L reports. I hope she’s kidding. Wherever the eminences gather, the conversation is almost certainly turgid and boring, a cliché-ridden bog of credulity and mutual self-regard: Have you seen Joe Nye’s latest article on “smart power,” Norm Ornstein says gridlock in Congress has never been worse, I’ve given two TED talks, one in Mumbai and one in London, John Oliver had this hilarious bit where he dressed up dogs as Supreme Court Justices! We got the kids fantastic seats for Taylor Swift through our black card, Cooper is taking a gap year to teach computer literacy to underprivileged youth in Ecuador, how many times do I have to tell people: I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative, we need to find a way to disrupt the disrupters, I worry about Israel’s future as a democratic state, we found the nicest apartment near the Place St. Michel on Airbnb, I haven’t seen Boyhood but did you know it took them 12 years to make?
This small talk and politesse, the exchange of trivial personal detail and social intelligence, of names and phrases cribbed from last week’s Economist, not only signifies one’s membership in a select group, it also insulates one from the scrutiny and critique and problematization to which outsiders are routinely subjected. What really interested Lady Lynn was Gelb’s upcoming profile of Clinton, and how she might put that information to use for herself. Her email served a dual purpose: It proved her value as a friend to Gelb, whose proposal she championed, and to Clinton, who was able to see that de Rothschild was acting as sentry, on the lookout for opportunities and hazards.
The false modesty—“Maybe you know this, but did not want it to fall between the cracks”—the affected intimacy—“Xoxo”—these are courtly mannerisms overlaid atop an appeal to Clinton’s self-interest. And of course no one involved seems to have given second thought to the implications of Gelb’s promise of a “veto over content,” of his vow that “she will like it.” There wasn’t any need to. We’re all friends here.
One can’t help noticing, however, the elision of any difference between appearance and reality, a widespread confusion of talking with doing. Gelb “wants to show the impact you are having,” Hillary is told, and his method will be to take dictation as she meets “with members of Congress and international figures.” But meetings and videoconferences delivered in the same courteous tones as this email don’t have “impact.” Policies implemented in the real world do.
Judged by miles flown and plenary sessions convened, interviews given and appearances made, Hillary Clinton was one of the most “impactful,” indeed successful, secretaries of state ever. Judged by what actions she took or did not take, however, what policies she pursued or was told not to pursue, she was easily one of the worst—a disastrous “reset” with Russia, a campaign against Iran sanctions her administration later pretended to have supported, misguided and dangerous “outreach” to the Muslim Brotherhood, no serious action to end the Syrian Civil War, the rushed and half-handed and disastrous Libya intervention, the failure to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that led to our full withdrawal at the end of 2011 and, in combination with the breakup of Syria, the rise of ISIS.
Her failures are hard to comprehend, actually—so great is their magnitude, so dismal the state of world order and American deterrence and prestige—it’s hard to face the fact that she is more likely than anyone to be the next president of the United States.
How does she do it, how is she able to flit above the incompetence and dissimulation and money-grubbing, from one benefit and tribute and resume-enhancing post to the next? Valuing political expediency above all surely helps. But there is also her ability to exploit the liberal dissociation of intention and result, her manner of so overwhelming liberals with statements of compassion and resolve and determination to combat inequity that they never end up paying attention to what she actually did with all that power and cash.
“We should create a day,” Clinton wrote to an aide while scheduling the Gelb interview. “Meeting w Webb about Burma, McCain/Lieberman/Graham about Af-Pak, etc. Meeting with Mitchell/Holbrooke etc.” Hillary Clinton creates her own days, planning with meticulous care her schedule of rehearsed interactions and focus-grouped poses in order to give the public the face she wants it to see at any moment. What made these latest emails shocking and powerful was the degree to which they revealed just how complicit the Washington establishment is in her shaping of perception, her fine-tuning of reputation and stature. What Clinton is seeking in the presidency is the opportunity to create many more days, for many more audiences, all with the purpose of furthering her and her family’s already obscene and unmerited wealth. And no one will bother to care, because life in this fair land is so distractingly pleasant—especially on August mornings in Nantucket.
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Matthew Continetti
July 3, 2015 5:00 am
So she doesn’t know how to use a fax machine. Big whoop. If there is a “smoking gun” in the 3,000 pages of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department this week, it’s not in her technological ineptitude, or her calling her hairdresser “Santa,” or her continuing to encourage Sid Blumenthal to offer bad advice, or her fetish for ice tea, or her bizarre demand that John Podesta wear socks to bed. The most revealing dispatch, the one dripping with unintended irony and status detail and sanctimony dressed as social conscience, is the email Lynn Forester de Rothschild, centimillionaire, addressed to Clinton on the morning of August 26, 2009. It is 122 preening and obsequious words long. I reprint it here:
H,
I spent yesterday with Les Gelb on Nantucket. He had lots to say which might be of interest, but I thought the most important thing to tell you is to make sure are aware of the Parade magazine piece he wants to do about you. He would like to do a day in your life, when you meet with members of Congress and international figures. He wants to show the impact you are having domestically and internationally. He said he would give you a veto over content and looked me in the eye and said, ‘she will like it.’ Maybe you know this, but did not want it to fall between the cracks. Enjoy your vacation and love to all of you.
Xoxo
L
Ah Nantucket! The island redoubt of the well heeled and au courant, where the billionaires go to escape the proles of the Vineyard, where you watch John Kerry windsurf from the starboard window of your private jet. Only a matter of time before this exclusive hideaway made an appearance in the correspondence of Hillary Clinton. And how perfect that it was during a summer in Nantucket, with the breeze coming off the sound and a Waterford pitcher of Cape Codders sitting on the patio table, that Lady Lynn communed with Dr. Gelb, who has worked in the Senate, at the New York Times, at the Brookings Institution, and is now president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Difficult to find such established and credentialed personages. In Nantucket they’re everywhere.I spent yesterday with Les Gelb on Nantucket. He had lots to say which might be of interest, but I thought the most important thing to tell you is to make sure are aware of the Parade magazine piece he wants to do about you. He would like to do a day in your life, when you meet with members of Congress and international figures. He wants to show the impact you are having domestically and internationally. He said he would give you a veto over content and looked me in the eye and said, ‘she will like it.’ Maybe you know this, but did not want it to fall between the cracks. Enjoy your vacation and love to all of you.
Xoxo
L
“He had lots to say which might be of interest,” L reports. I hope she’s kidding. Wherever the eminences gather, the conversation is almost certainly turgid and boring, a cliché-ridden bog of credulity and mutual self-regard: Have you seen Joe Nye’s latest article on “smart power,” Norm Ornstein says gridlock in Congress has never been worse, I’ve given two TED talks, one in Mumbai and one in London, John Oliver had this hilarious bit where he dressed up dogs as Supreme Court Justices! We got the kids fantastic seats for Taylor Swift through our black card, Cooper is taking a gap year to teach computer literacy to underprivileged youth in Ecuador, how many times do I have to tell people: I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative, we need to find a way to disrupt the disrupters, I worry about Israel’s future as a democratic state, we found the nicest apartment near the Place St. Michel on Airbnb, I haven’t seen Boyhood but did you know it took them 12 years to make?
This small talk and politesse, the exchange of trivial personal detail and social intelligence, of names and phrases cribbed from last week’s Economist, not only signifies one’s membership in a select group, it also insulates one from the scrutiny and critique and problematization to which outsiders are routinely subjected. What really interested Lady Lynn was Gelb’s upcoming profile of Clinton, and how she might put that information to use for herself. Her email served a dual purpose: It proved her value as a friend to Gelb, whose proposal she championed, and to Clinton, who was able to see that de Rothschild was acting as sentry, on the lookout for opportunities and hazards.
The false modesty—“Maybe you know this, but did not want it to fall between the cracks”—the affected intimacy—“Xoxo”—these are courtly mannerisms overlaid atop an appeal to Clinton’s self-interest. And of course no one involved seems to have given second thought to the implications of Gelb’s promise of a “veto over content,” of his vow that “she will like it.” There wasn’t any need to. We’re all friends here.
One can’t help noticing, however, the elision of any difference between appearance and reality, a widespread confusion of talking with doing. Gelb “wants to show the impact you are having,” Hillary is told, and his method will be to take dictation as she meets “with members of Congress and international figures.” But meetings and videoconferences delivered in the same courteous tones as this email don’t have “impact.” Policies implemented in the real world do.
Judged by miles flown and plenary sessions convened, interviews given and appearances made, Hillary Clinton was one of the most “impactful,” indeed successful, secretaries of state ever. Judged by what actions she took or did not take, however, what policies she pursued or was told not to pursue, she was easily one of the worst—a disastrous “reset” with Russia, a campaign against Iran sanctions her administration later pretended to have supported, misguided and dangerous “outreach” to the Muslim Brotherhood, no serious action to end the Syrian Civil War, the rushed and half-handed and disastrous Libya intervention, the failure to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that led to our full withdrawal at the end of 2011 and, in combination with the breakup of Syria, the rise of ISIS.
Her failures are hard to comprehend, actually—so great is their magnitude, so dismal the state of world order and American deterrence and prestige—it’s hard to face the fact that she is more likely than anyone to be the next president of the United States.
How does she do it, how is she able to flit above the incompetence and dissimulation and money-grubbing, from one benefit and tribute and resume-enhancing post to the next? Valuing political expediency above all surely helps. But there is also her ability to exploit the liberal dissociation of intention and result, her manner of so overwhelming liberals with statements of compassion and resolve and determination to combat inequity that they never end up paying attention to what she actually did with all that power and cash.
“We should create a day,” Clinton wrote to an aide while scheduling the Gelb interview. “Meeting w Webb about Burma, McCain/Lieberman/Graham about Af-Pak, etc. Meeting with Mitchell/Holbrooke etc.” Hillary Clinton creates her own days, planning with meticulous care her schedule of rehearsed interactions and focus-grouped poses in order to give the public the face she wants it to see at any moment. What made these latest emails shocking and powerful was the degree to which they revealed just how complicit the Washington establishment is in her shaping of perception, her fine-tuning of reputation and stature. What Clinton is seeking in the presidency is the opportunity to create many more days, for many more audiences, all with the purpose of furthering her and her family’s already obscene and unmerited wealth. And no one will bother to care, because life in this fair land is so distractingly pleasant—especially on August mornings in Nantucket.
[h=1]HILLARY’S ‘SMILE AND WAVE’ CAMPAIGN ISN’T WORKING[/h]
by JOHN SEXTON2 Jul 2015292
[h=2]There’s a scene in the first Madagascar movie–the animated film–where a group of penguins are staging a breakout from the zoo. In order to cover their covert activity from the prying eyes of human visitors, the lead penguin advises his comrades, “Just smile and wave boys, smile and wave.”[/h]That’s a pretty good analogy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President thus far. She may have an army of highly-paid staffers working with all the diligence of military-minded penguins, but Hillary herself is mostly just smiling and waving for the cameras.
In fact, her checking out from real campaigning is measurable. The Washington Postcreated a clock which measures the minutes since Hillary last answered a question from the media. Currently the clock is at 24,547 minutes, which is just over two weeks. What happened to the candidate who was going to start engaging after her re-launch on Roosevelt Island just a couple weeks ago? Instead, Hillary is once again in hiding, but it’s a strategy that polling suggests is not working for her.
When Clinton launched her campaign for President back in April, she had relatively high favorability and ubiquitous name recognition. This, combined with the fact that she had no serious challenger on her left, meant she really didn’t have to do much but coast. And that’s exactly what she did. In the first 31 days of her campaign, she made a few tightly controlled appearances with hand-picked Democrats but only answered 13 questions from real reporters.
But that’s not the situation she’s in any more. Socialist Bernie Sanders is closing in on Hillary in Iowa. He has already surpassed her with the liberal base of the party and is now making substantial inroads among women voters as well. This chart by Phillip Bump based on Quinnipiac polling shows the trend:
Hillary’s drop owes something to there being a somewhat credible alternative who excites the party’s hard left core, but it also probably has a lot to do with voter’s sense of embarrassment. No one wants to support a candidate they do not believe is truthful or trustworthy. Sanders may be unpolished, but at least he is earnest. Hillary has been shownto be a money-grubbing fraud, and her campaign and, most importantly, the candidate herself, don’t seem to have much to say about it.
The only way for Hillary to improve her worsening situation is to come out from the undisclosed location where she is kept between appearances and try to answer the many outstanding questions about her Foundation, her email server, her husband’s lucrative speeches, and her dubious achievements as Secretary of State. Those questions remain outstanding because, as noted above, she has refused to answer them. But not answering is not making them go away. To consider just one example, it appears the claims she made about her homebrew email server a few months ago were not accurate. She is going to have to come up with new answers if she wants the issue to fade rather than fester.
Hillary’s camp has been saying that she would run as the underdog not the candidate of inevitability. But underdogs press the flesh and meet the press. They don’t get to take two weeks off between questions. Hillary is running a smile and wave campaign, and the polls indicate it isn’t working for her. She has already “launched” her campaign twice, maybe the third time will be the charm.
by JOHN SEXTON2 Jul 2015292
[h=2]There’s a scene in the first Madagascar movie–the animated film–where a group of penguins are staging a breakout from the zoo. In order to cover their covert activity from the prying eyes of human visitors, the lead penguin advises his comrades, “Just smile and wave boys, smile and wave.”[/h]That’s a pretty good analogy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President thus far. She may have an army of highly-paid staffers working with all the diligence of military-minded penguins, but Hillary herself is mostly just smiling and waving for the cameras.
In fact, her checking out from real campaigning is measurable. The Washington Postcreated a clock which measures the minutes since Hillary last answered a question from the media. Currently the clock is at 24,547 minutes, which is just over two weeks. What happened to the candidate who was going to start engaging after her re-launch on Roosevelt Island just a couple weeks ago? Instead, Hillary is once again in hiding, but it’s a strategy that polling suggests is not working for her.
When Clinton launched her campaign for President back in April, she had relatively high favorability and ubiquitous name recognition. This, combined with the fact that she had no serious challenger on her left, meant she really didn’t have to do much but coast. And that’s exactly what she did. In the first 31 days of her campaign, she made a few tightly controlled appearances with hand-picked Democrats but only answered 13 questions from real reporters.
But that’s not the situation she’s in any more. Socialist Bernie Sanders is closing in on Hillary in Iowa. He has already surpassed her with the liberal base of the party and is now making substantial inroads among women voters as well. This chart by Phillip Bump based on Quinnipiac polling shows the trend:
Hillary’s drop owes something to there being a somewhat credible alternative who excites the party’s hard left core, but it also probably has a lot to do with voter’s sense of embarrassment. No one wants to support a candidate they do not believe is truthful or trustworthy. Sanders may be unpolished, but at least he is earnest. Hillary has been shownto be a money-grubbing fraud, and her campaign and, most importantly, the candidate herself, don’t seem to have much to say about it.
The only way for Hillary to improve her worsening situation is to come out from the undisclosed location where she is kept between appearances and try to answer the many outstanding questions about her Foundation, her email server, her husband’s lucrative speeches, and her dubious achievements as Secretary of State. Those questions remain outstanding because, as noted above, she has refused to answer them. But not answering is not making them go away. To consider just one example, it appears the claims she made about her homebrew email server a few months ago were not accurate. She is going to have to come up with new answers if she wants the issue to fade rather than fester.
Hillary’s camp has been saying that she would run as the underdog not the candidate of inevitability. But underdogs press the flesh and meet the press. They don’t get to take two weeks off between questions. Hillary is running a smile and wave campaign, and the polls indicate it isn’t working for her. She has already “launched” her campaign twice, maybe the third time will be the charm.
Re "connecting the dots." The Watergate burglary was carried out by insiders on Nixon's team without his knowledge, because he likely would have disallowed it. But when Nixon found out about it he then chose to participate in the cover up. For months every inquiry into this burglary was squashed before it saw the light of day. It was just a few persistent guys at the Washington Post who refused to stop trying to connect the dots. Eventually they prevailed.
Hillary Clinton has the stench of a liar and a phony all over her. She doesn't want to be president for the betterment of America. She wants to be the president for the betterment of her. She's FOS and it's so obvious. I hope something finally comes to light that brings her down for good. Because I know it exists.
Hillary Clinton has the stench of a liar and a phony all over her. She doesn't want to be president for the betterment of America. She wants to be the president for the betterment of her. She's FOS and it's so obvious. I hope something finally comes to light that brings her down for good. Because I know it exists.
Connecting dots is part of the equation. Unfortunately too many avoid connecting dots for political reasons. Hillary is up to her neck in dots that can be easily connected. She knows what she has done and gives herself a pass based solely on elitism. Scott, I think she will bring herself down, just a matter of time. However, I would not want Trey Gowdy after me and he is already uncovering emails that Hillary hoped were not still in existence. Connecting dots is one thing, filling out your ballot is another.
Too funny. If you expose Hillary you are spamming and trolling. You can't make that stuff up. The Tard cannot even see that the Hillary Foundation and the speaking fees and the fact that Hillary was Sec of St all at the same time are not even remotely related. Benghazi, well those dots started when the Ambassador began begging for extra security long before the tragedy. That one is on her. There are more dots on Hillary then there were on Obama but he snuck thru and they were not all connected until he got into office. The real troll mentions fax machines and fails to mention e-mails. You really can't make this stuff up. Not getting it is one thing, ignoring it is another. Very Scary, but nothing new with the Tard. Should I quit posting on this thread.......right lol.
You should consider quiting on life because you've already lost.
You havent connected anything and just keep flailing away like an obsessed teenage girl.
If bernie sanders wins the primary you would be connecting dots on him that don't exist. It's what political hacks do. You sit silent while these corrupt wackjob republican candidates enter the race....you sit silent as the scumbag Koch brothers continue to try and buy elections.
Get a grip on reality
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Clinton says she takes a 'backseat to no one' among liberals
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]
Jul 3, 6:21 PM (ET)
By KEN THOMAS
| ||||||
|
Clinton addressed 850 people at an outdoor amphitheater at Dartmouth College, a last-minute venue change made to accommodate a larger audience. Days earlier, Sanders spoke before about 10,000 people in Madison, Wisconsin. The former secretary of state made no mention of Sanders but warned that Republicans would unravel President Barack Obama's policies if they recaptured the White House, including the repeal of his signature health care overhaul.
"I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record of standing up and fighting for progressive values," Clinton said on a sun-dappled kickoff to the Fourth of July weekend in Hanover, New Hampshire, across the Connecticut River from Sanders' home state of Vermont.
The Democratic presidential front-runner portrayed herself as a candidate of continuity to Obama and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, praising the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding health care subsidies under the overhaul. She said if the nation elected a Republican president, "they will repeal the Affordable Care Act. That is as certain as I can say."
|
The former New York senator's team has been wary of likening her to the equivalent of Obama's third term but her acclaim for the president's policies highlighted a string of recent victories by the White House in its defense of the health care law, the Supreme Court's ruling allowing gay marriage and steady economic numbers.
In a rare discussion of foreign policy, Clinton spoke supportively of Obama's efforts to reach an agreement with Iran to curb the country's nuclear program, talks that she helped set in motion as secretary of state. Previewing next week's deadline for negotiations, Clinton said she hoped the U.S. would "get a deal that puts a lid on Iran's nuclear weapons program" but said it was "too soon" to know if that was possible.
Seeking the Democratic nomination, Clinton's focus has been on economic issues, the driving force behind Sanders' recent rise in polls. The senator describes himself as a democratic socialist and has won elections in Vermont as an independent. He has drawn large crowds around the country and reported raising $15 million since late April, about one-third of the $45 million Clinton has brought in.
|
Some of the people who came to see Clinton at Dartmouth said Sanders could ultimately have a positive influence on her in the nation's first primary state.
"I think he's pushing her to address some issues and I think that will be all for the good," said Sybil Buell, a Norwich, Vermont, resident who attended the Clinton event. Buell said she was "on the fence" over whether to support Clinton or Sanders in the early stages of the campaign.
"There's a little feeling of inevitability with her," said Chuck Manns, of Lebanon, New Hampshire, who backed Clinton in 2008. He said Sanders was a "curiosity right now," but predicted Clinton's electability would shine through.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[h=2]Slumlords to Host Hillary Clinton Fundraiser[/h]FLASHBACK: Schusters investigated for misappropriation of millions in federal funds
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
July 2, 2015 3:10 pm
At the center of Hillary Clinton’s fundraising trip through Massachusetts is a Thursday evening visit to longtime Clinton donors Elaine and Gerald Schuster.
Not only are they hosting Clinton, they also introduced her to the host of the campaign’s lunchtime fundraiser Bryan Rafanelli, who planned Chelsea Clinton’s wedding for $175,000 and managed multiple events for Clinton’s State Department.
The Schuster family is one of 12 families that has donated money to every Clinton endeavor since 1992—including all national campaigns, the super PACs, and the Clinton Foundation for a total of at least $1,273,400 as of last year.
The couple’s wealth is from their real estate firm, the Continental Wingate Company, which was the recipient of “federal subsidies, tax breaks and low-interest loans” during the Clinton administration for its work rehabilitating old buildings in Massachusetts and New York City.
The firm ran into trouble in 1999 when it was investigated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for misappropriating $1.4 million that was intended for the rehabilitation of a dilapidated South Bronx housing complex.
According to the HUD inspector general’s report, Schuster siphoned off the $1.4 million and used it to pay off unrelated loans and make further investments.
In 1996, Continental defaulted on six of eight mortgages for Beekman Houses and HUD was forced to take control of the complex and pay off $27.4 million in loan debt.
When HUD took control, 80 percent of the units in the complex failed to meet health standards and needed serious repairs, according to an earlier 1997 HUD report that called the deal with Continental a “poor deal for HUD and the taxpayers” and noted “The plan rewards a landlord who may bear responsibility for the deplorable conditions of the projects.”
The conditions at Beekman were called into question long before that.
As a member of the New York State Assembly, Chuck Schumer called into question how the owner of Beekman received so much federal money without improving living conditions.
“How was it possible for the Federal Government to spend $20 million on these houses and still have them remain such horrible slums?” asked Schumer during an investigative hearing in the 1970s that failed to produce action.
$20 million of state-sponsored insurance was cancelled at Beekman in 1981 because Continental failed to comply with New York City’s building code and federal requirements
Throughout all of this, the Schusters remained friends with the Clintons.
As president in 1998, Bill Clinton attended a fundraiser at the Schusters’ Boston home.
Elaine Schuster was a board member at the Clinton Foundation, and also served as a member of President Clinton’s advisory committee on the arts for his entire term. Gerald Schuster is a trustee of the Clinton Library Foundation.
The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment on the Schusters’ history with the Beekman Houses
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Brent Scher
July 2, 2015 3:10 pm
At the center of Hillary Clinton’s fundraising trip through Massachusetts is a Thursday evening visit to longtime Clinton donors Elaine and Gerald Schuster.
Not only are they hosting Clinton, they also introduced her to the host of the campaign’s lunchtime fundraiser Bryan Rafanelli, who planned Chelsea Clinton’s wedding for $175,000 and managed multiple events for Clinton’s State Department.
The Schuster family is one of 12 families that has donated money to every Clinton endeavor since 1992—including all national campaigns, the super PACs, and the Clinton Foundation for a total of at least $1,273,400 as of last year.
The couple’s wealth is from their real estate firm, the Continental Wingate Company, which was the recipient of “federal subsidies, tax breaks and low-interest loans” during the Clinton administration for its work rehabilitating old buildings in Massachusetts and New York City.
The firm ran into trouble in 1999 when it was investigated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for misappropriating $1.4 million that was intended for the rehabilitation of a dilapidated South Bronx housing complex.
According to the HUD inspector general’s report, Schuster siphoned off the $1.4 million and used it to pay off unrelated loans and make further investments.
In 1996, Continental defaulted on six of eight mortgages for Beekman Houses and HUD was forced to take control of the complex and pay off $27.4 million in loan debt.
When HUD took control, 80 percent of the units in the complex failed to meet health standards and needed serious repairs, according to an earlier 1997 HUD report that called the deal with Continental a “poor deal for HUD and the taxpayers” and noted “The plan rewards a landlord who may bear responsibility for the deplorable conditions of the projects.”
The conditions at Beekman were called into question long before that.
As a member of the New York State Assembly, Chuck Schumer called into question how the owner of Beekman received so much federal money without improving living conditions.
“How was it possible for the Federal Government to spend $20 million on these houses and still have them remain such horrible slums?” asked Schumer during an investigative hearing in the 1970s that failed to produce action.
$20 million of state-sponsored insurance was cancelled at Beekman in 1981 because Continental failed to comply with New York City’s building code and federal requirements
Throughout all of this, the Schusters remained friends with the Clintons.
As president in 1998, Bill Clinton attended a fundraiser at the Schusters’ Boston home.
Elaine Schuster was a board member at the Clinton Foundation, and also served as a member of President Clinton’s advisory committee on the arts for his entire term. Gerald Schuster is a trustee of the Clinton Library Foundation.
The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment on the Schusters’ history with the Beekman Houses
[h=2]DEMOCRATS[/h][h=1]Clinton campaign ropes off reporters at New Hampshire parade[/h]
By Joseph Weber
Published July 05, 2015FoxNews.com
Facebook744 Twitter735 livefyre6359 Email Print
Next
Campaign aides for Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Saturday roped off reporters from the candidate as she walked and talked with potential voters during a July Fourth parade in New Hampshire, sparking frustration from the press corps and outrage from the state Republican Party.
“Hillary Clinton continues to demonstrate her obvious contempt and disdain for the Granite State’s style of grassroots campaigning,” New Hampshire Republican State Committee Chairman Jennifer Horn said in a statement. “The use of a rope line at a New Hampshire parade is a sad joke and insults the traditions of our first-in-the-nation primary.”
Reporters were reportedly allowed to get close to Clinton but were later herded away by campaign aides concerned about crowd control.
“Spectacle of Clinton as candidate -- press being pulled along with a rope,” tweeted New York Times presidential campaign correspondent Maggie Haberman.
The campaign responded to the outrage, telling CNN: “While the GOP might want to spin a good yarn on this, let’s not get tied up in knots. We wanted to accommodate the press, allow (Clinton) greet voters (sic.) And allow the press to be right there in the parade with her, as opposed to preset locations.”
However, the optics of reporters being corralled along at the event, in Gotham, N.H., did not look good and added to the criticism that Clinton, unlike other 2016 presidential candidates, is shielded from reporters and their questions and as a public figure is cloaked in secrecy.
“Never underestimate @HillaryClinton’s capacity to fritter away natural advantages with poor judgement,” tweeted Politico politics reporter Glenn Thrush.
Reporters and potential voters are often kept at a distance from presidential candidates at large events by what is called a “rope line.”
The Clinton campaign faced similar criticism several weeks ago after denying a DailyMail.com reporter access to at least one campaign event.
The event Saturday was also marked by at least one person heckling Clinton about what exactly she did as secretary of state before the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed.
Though Clinton, also a former first lady and U.S. senator, is the clear Democratic front runner, primary challenger Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent, has been drawing large crowds at campaign events in New Hampshire.
He released the following statement Saturday on the Clinton campaign’s use of a rope line to protect the Democrat frontrunner on a public street at Gorham’s annual Independence Day parade:
“Today, Republican presidential candidates marched in parades across New Hampshire that were open to the public without obstruction from their staff. Their efforts to reach out to voters and engage in retail campaigning stand in sharp contrast to Secretary Clinton’s arrogant and shameful behavior.
By Joseph Weber
Published July 05, 2015FoxNews.com
Facebook744 Twitter735 livefyre6359 Email Print
-
July 4, 2015: Hillary Clinton walks in a New Hampshire parade, with the press behind a rope. (Maggie Haberman/New York Times)
Next
Campaign aides for Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Saturday roped off reporters from the candidate as she walked and talked with potential voters during a July Fourth parade in New Hampshire, sparking frustration from the press corps and outrage from the state Republican Party.
“Hillary Clinton continues to demonstrate her obvious contempt and disdain for the Granite State’s style of grassroots campaigning,” New Hampshire Republican State Committee Chairman Jennifer Horn said in a statement. “The use of a rope line at a New Hampshire parade is a sad joke and insults the traditions of our first-in-the-nation primary.”
Reporters were reportedly allowed to get close to Clinton but were later herded away by campaign aides concerned about crowd control.
“Spectacle of Clinton as candidate -- press being pulled along with a rope,” tweeted New York Times presidential campaign correspondent Maggie Haberman.
The campaign responded to the outrage, telling CNN: “While the GOP might want to spin a good yarn on this, let’s not get tied up in knots. We wanted to accommodate the press, allow (Clinton) greet voters (sic.) And allow the press to be right there in the parade with her, as opposed to preset locations.”
However, the optics of reporters being corralled along at the event, in Gotham, N.H., did not look good and added to the criticism that Clinton, unlike other 2016 presidential candidates, is shielded from reporters and their questions and as a public figure is cloaked in secrecy.
“Never underestimate @HillaryClinton’s capacity to fritter away natural advantages with poor judgement,” tweeted Politico politics reporter Glenn Thrush.
Reporters and potential voters are often kept at a distance from presidential candidates at large events by what is called a “rope line.”
The Clinton campaign faced similar criticism several weeks ago after denying a DailyMail.com reporter access to at least one campaign event.
The event Saturday was also marked by at least one person heckling Clinton about what exactly she did as secretary of state before the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed.
Though Clinton, also a former first lady and U.S. senator, is the clear Democratic front runner, primary challenger Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent, has been drawing large crowds at campaign events in New Hampshire.
He released the following statement Saturday on the Clinton campaign’s use of a rope line to protect the Democrat frontrunner on a public street at Gorham’s annual Independence Day parade:
“Today, Republican presidential candidates marched in parades across New Hampshire that were open to the public without obstruction from their staff. Their efforts to reach out to voters and engage in retail campaigning stand in sharp contrast to Secretary Clinton’s arrogant and shameful behavior.
