Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[russ1945]

[h=1]THE 10 QUESTIONS HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED ON CNN[/h]

AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

by ALEX MARLOW & STEPHEN K. BANNON7 Jul 20151255

[h=2]Tuesday’s fawning CNN interview with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton raised more questions than it answered, particularly as it relates to the glowing question marks still hovering around then-Sec. of State Clinton and Bill Clinton’s massive wealth accumulation through foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation.[/h]Clinton shut down all questions related to her involvement and personal benefit from the millions of dollars in donations and speaking fees she and her husband received that were paid for by foreign Clinton Foundation contributors.
“No plans to say or do anything about the Clinton Foundation except to say how proud I am of the work it is doing,” Clinton told CNN, without any follow-up from Brianna Keiler, the CNN reporter who two weeks ago attended a Clinton campaign staffer’s wedding.
Clinton also took a swipe at Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, author of the New York Times bestselling bombshell investigative book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
“I mean, people write books filled with unsubstantiated attacks against us. And even admit they have no evidence. But of course, it’s your job to cover it. So of course that’s going to raise questions in people’s minds,” said Clinton in a not-so-veiled reference to Clinton Cash.
Here, then, are just 10 of the myriad questions Brianna Keiler should have asked:
1. Were emails related to you and your husband’s six-figure speaking fees paid for by foreign entities and foreign Clinton Foundation contributors among the tens of thousands of emails you deleted and/or wiped from your secret server housed in your home in Chappaqua?
2. Before your State Dept. approved the deal, did you make it known to the State Dept., the White House, and the other eight government agencies involved in the decision to transfer 20% of all U.S. uranium to the Russian government that you and your husband received $145 million in contributions from the investors in the uranium deal?
3. Why did you fail to disclose that the head of the Russian government’s uranium company, Ian Telfer, funneled four donations totaling $2.35 million to your family foundation while your State Dept. was considering approval of Russia’s acquisition of 20% of all U.S. uranium—the material used to build nuclear weapons?
4. Was it appropriate for your husband to be paid $500,000 by a Kremlin-backed bank for a speech in Moscow as the deal to transfer 20% of U.S. uranium to Vladimir Putin lay on your desk at the State Dept.?
5. You’ve said you were “not personally involved” with the decision to transfer 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russian government because “That wasn’t something the Secretary of State did.” How could you, as Secretary of State, be unaware and uninvolved in a decision within your agency on a matter with such grave implications for the United States of America?
6. Why have you continued to stonewall the release of the names of at least 1,100 hidden foreign donations to your family foundation—a direct violation of your agreement with the Obama administration that all donations would be disclosed?
7. You and your husband have received a combined $3.4 million in speaking fees for 18 speeches you and he delivered that were paid for by top investors in the Keystone XL pipeline. How did those millions of dollars in fees that went directly into your family’s pockets impact your clearing of key hurdles in the Keystone XL pipeline’s path while you were Sec. of State?
8. Another of your foreign donors, Stephen Dattels, gave your foundation two million shares of stock even as your State Dept. allowed “open pit coal mining” in Bangladesh—the location where Dattels’ company, Polo Resources, had a stake in the deal. Why did you hide the Dattels donation—another clear violation of the memorandum of understanding you signed with the Obama White House?
9. When will you turn over your secret server, or has it been destroyed? If so, by whom and at whose direction?
10. Do you honestly expect Americans to believe that all of the actions you took as Secretary of State favoring your multi-million dollar foreign contributors and those who paid you and your husband millions of dollars in speaking fees are merely “coincidences,” as your campaign has stated?

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]SCRIPTED INTERVIEW: CNN’S BRIANNA KEILAR HURLS SOFTBALLS, HUMANIZES HILLARY[/h]

by JOHN NOLTE7 Jul 2015294

We learned last month that CNN’s Brianna Keilar is quite capable of interviewing a presidential candidate. Keiler proved it when she appropriately dug into Republican Dr. Ben Carson as he tried to dodge questions on the issue of gay rights (there’s no dodging when you’re running for president).
The Brianna Keilar who bloodied Carson is, as expected, nothing close to the Brianna Keilar who interviewed Hillary Clinton Tuesday afternoon.
During a 20-or-so minute interview that — again, as expected — came off as something scripted between the left-wing cable news network and the Clinton campaign, Keilar asked some of the right questions but then allowed Hillary to answer them with soundbites, platitudes, and half-truths. There were no follow ups, no digging into the details, and not a single question Hillary could not have expected, planned for, and rehearsed the answer for.
Questions about Hillary and trust all centered around … polls!
Which is exactly why the entire interview — Hillary’s first national interview since announcing her candidacy! — came off as a scripted effort at political rehabilitation, not the tense, difficult, precise, unrelenting interview it should have been.
There is no question Hillary knew all these questions were coming, so she had her canned answers ready. Rather than throw Clinton off her talking points with facts, details, and tough follow-ups Clinton didn’t expect, Keilar would just move on to the next expected question and the next canned answer and the next expected question and the next canned answer.
After allowing Hillary to get away with her canned answers about her email scandal, the only question Keilar asked about the Clinton Foundation is whether or not the Foundation would close if she became president.
Then it was on to the kind of over-the-plate questions Republicans never get: Please bash Donald Trump and your opponents; which woman should go on the $10 bill; who is the best Hillary impersonator.
Naturally, the big headline coming out of the interview is Hillary attacking Trump.
—
—
In a throwaway moment, Keilar did remind voters that Trump has supported Hillary in the past but never asked a tough question like, “Will you return his donations?”
Need I add that there was not a single question about Benghazi.
The entire interview was scripted to do 8 very important things:

1. Allow Hillary to pretend she’s answered “all the scandal questions.”
2. Humanize Hillary.
3. Keep the Trump story alive.
4. Bloody Republicans.
5. Not mention Benghazi.
6. No unexpected questions Hillary wasn’t ready for.
7. Put no pressure on Hillary.
8. Not trip Hillary up.

Number 8 is the most important. At all times Hillary must look in control and in command, while Republicans are made to feckless and on defense.
No wonder the Clinton campaign hand-picked Breilar to do the interview.
And it is no accident that this interview came just two weeks after Keilar attended the wedding of a senior Clinton campaign staffer.
Below are imperfect transcripts of Keilar’s questions, so that you get the gist.
—
– Bernie Sanders is attracting a lot of attention; big crowds. Why is it that a self-described Democratic Socialist’s campaign is attracting attention when yours is not.
– Sen. Sanders says he will raise taxes. Will you?
Hillary dodges. Refuses to answer.
– Six-in-ten Americans don’t see you as trustworthy. Do you feel any responsibility for that?
Hillary blames the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
– Do you have any responsibility for this trust deficit?
Hillary claims there’s no evidence against her.
– Would you vote for someone you don’t trust?
– What was the thought process behind your email policy?
Hillary says she did nothing wrong — only what others in her position have done.
– You’re saying you did the same things [with your email] other Secretary of States did?
– A Democrat Attorney General criticized your handling of your email.
– Has the Clinton Foundation controversy made you think about what will happen to the Foundation if you are president?
Hillary exalts how proud she is of the Foundation
– Let’s talk now about Republicans. Can you believe there could be another Clinton/Bush election 25 years later?
– What do you think about Donald Trump’s comments about Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals.
– But Isn’t Jeb’s position on immigration different from Trump’s?
– Last week an “undocumented immigrant’ killed a woman, do you support sanctuary cities?
Hilary blames it on a government snafu.
– What’s changed when it comes to your approach with the media?
– Have you given any thought of the woman who should be in the ten-dollar bill?
– Who is a better Hillary impersonator on Saturday Night Live
—
Democrats sure got it good, especially on CNN.
The Clinton News Network returns.

 

[The Guesser]

Say Hillary Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions.
— Facebook posts on Monday, July 6th, 2015 in a meme on social media

[h=1]Meme says Hillary Clinton's top donors are banks and corporations, Bernie Sanders' are labor unions[/h] By Louis Jacobson on Tuesday, July 7th, 2015 at 10:51 a.m.

Sen. Bernie Sanders march in a Fourth of July parade in Creston, Iowa, on July 4, 2015. (Ruth Fremson/New York Times)

Democratic presidental candidate Hillary Clinton marches in a parade in Gorham, N.H., on July 4, 2015. (Darren McCollester/Getty Images)
As Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gains ground on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the two candidates’ supporters have been sparring, including over campaign donations.
Recently, a reader sent us a social media meme that paints Clinton’s list of donors as dominated by corporate interests, whereas Sanders’ top 10 donors come largely from labor unions -- a dichotomy that, to Democratic primary voters, puts Sanders in a more favorable light.
"Hillary: Top ten donor list. Representing banks, corporations and media," the meme reads, providing a top-10 list with dollar amounts. "Bernie: Top ten donor list. Representing people." The meme is topped by each candidate’s presidential campaign logo. (See the meme below.)
We can’t tell who produced this meme, but we thought it was worth a closer look.
We’ll start by noting that reasonable people can disagree about whether labor unions represent "people," as the meme says, as opposed to just unionized workers, who are a relatively small subset of the entire population. We’ll also note that while this meme may appeal to union supporters and critics of Wall Street and big corporations, it also could be used as evidence that Sanders is just as reliant on one type of donor -- labor unions -- as Clinton is on big corporations.
We found that the data cited in the meme refers to cumulative donations over the course of each candidate’s political career as calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, not just fundraising from the current presidential cycle. (Clinton and Sanders have announced their fundraising hauls for the second quarter of 2015, but have not yet released the full data that is due at the Federal Election Commission by July 15; a more complete analysis of the data will be compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics after that.)

For Clinton, we found a high degree of similarity with the meme when we checked the database on July 6.
Clinton’s top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILY’s List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288).
That list is quite close to what the meme says. It includes five financial-services companies, two law firms that do a lot of corporate work, two media conglomerates and one group, EMILY’s list, that supports abortion-rights Democratic candidates. It’s worth noting that Clinton was a senator from New York, meaning that some of the donors on her list were not simply Wall Street and corporate behemoths, but also constituents, based in New York.
The database results for Sanders are also quite close to what’s in the meme. The data for Sanders goes back to 1989.
His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500).
In the meme, the letter carriers’ union makes the list, but the Center for Responsive Politics has the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees cracking the top 10 instead. Either way, nine of the 10 are unions, and the tenth is the national association representing plaintiffs’ attorneys. During his career, Sanders has received strong support from progressive Democrats, so this pattern of financial backing is not surprising.
So the meme is pretty accurate for both candidates. However, we see a few things worth pointing out.
As we noted, this data refers to their entire political careers back to the 1990s. Once the full presidential data is released, those figures may show different patterns. "That is not made clear" in the meme, said Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College. "Most people would assume that this is money raised so far in the 2016 presidential campaign."
Also, the "donors" listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it was their PACs, employees and those employees’ families. In fact, due to how the forms are filled out, the data is less likely to capture individual donations from union members than from employers of companies. Most individual donations are listed by employer, and if, say, a union carpenter lists his affiliation as his company, the fact that he’s a union member wouldn’t be recorded.
Finally, lists such as this ignore that both candidates are collecting many small donations, too. According to the Clinton campaign, she raised roughly $50 million in contributions under $200 during her '08 campaign. Data for the 2016 cycle is not available yet.
All told, it’s possible to look at the top donors on the two lists and say both candidates are captive to a particular set of interest groups, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. However, he added, "labor is a Democratic constituency whose beliefs generally line up with Democratic policies, and we’re talking about a Democratic primary here. So all things being equal, Sanders’ donor list probably looks better, politically, than Clinton’s."
Kondik added that, as the meme indicates, Clinton has a much larger reservoir of money than Sanders has. "The value of having a large financial advantage over your competitors in a primary setting seems to be worth occasional questions about how the financial advantage was built," he said.
Our ruling
Social media memes say that Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Here's the reporter who fawned over, ahem, interviewed the Hildabeast:

Brianna Keilar, to Interview Hillary, Fawned Over Her at Chipotle: 'She's Just Like Us' -

On April 14, Keilar hyped, "Yesterday [Mrs. Clinton] stopped at a Chipotle, a campaign aide sharing with us that she had a chicken burrito bowl with black beans and guacamole and an iced tea. And you know what that kind of detail tells you — it says, ‘She's just like us. She eats at Chipotle.'"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...le-shes-just-us#sthash.JGYbV26o.Oi4HluOP.dpuf

What a joke.

 

[russ1945]

Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady; graduate of the Yale Law School. Brilliant, delicious, and everyone should vote for her. Future president of the United States. Failed the D.C. bar exam in the 1970s, but passed the Arkansas bar — where she went on to have a successful legal career, as a partner in the Rose Law Firm. (Whitewater ???)

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]HILLARY CLINTON’S LONG HISTORY OF HIDING DOCUMENTS[/h]

AP Photo/Chris Martinez

by BEN SHAPIRO4 Mar 2015592

[h=2]It doesn’t matter.[/h]That’s what some in the media have insisted about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to use her own private server and email address to avoid public scrutiny for her entire tenure. David Brock, wild-haired henchman for Hillary Clinton at the Clinton-backed Media Matters for America, appeared on MSNBC today to play defense. He demanded that The New York Times retract their story on Hillary’s hidden emails. “There is no violation of law here, Joe, that I can see whatsoever,” Brock insisted. That prompted even MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski to wonder aloud, “Oh, my God. I’m not sure what planet I’m on right now.”
Probably the same planet, Mika, where the media have ignored Hillary Clinton’s obstructions and dissemblance for decades. Hillary Clinton has a long and inglorious history of alleged document tampering and questionable legal maneuverings. Here are some of her greatest hits:
Hillary’s “Thwarted Record Requests.” On Wednesday, the Times reported that Clinton used her private email address to avoid turning over documents to Congressional committees investigating the Benghazi, Libya terror attack of September 11, 2012. According to the Times, “It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.” The State Department did the same routine with regard to a Freedom of Information Act request asking for correspondence between Hillary and former political hit man Sidney Blumenthal; in 2010, the AP said its FOIA requests had gone unanswered by the State Department on the same grounds; the same holds true with regard to FOIA requests from conservative group Citizens United.
Hillary’s First Emailgate. According to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, Hillary’s top woman, Cheryl Mills – you remember her from Benghazi – “helped orchestrate the cover-up of a major scandal, often referred to as ‘Email-gate.’” Over the course of years, the Clinton Administration allegedly withheld some 1.8 million email communications from Judicial Watch’s attorneys, as well as federal investigators and Congress. Judicial Watchsays that when a White House computer contractor attempted to reveal the emails, White House officials “instructed her to keep her mouth shut about the hidden e-mail or face dismissal and jail time.”
Hillary’s Missing Whitewater Documents. In 1996, a special Senate Whitewater committee released a report from the FBI demonstrating that documents sought in the Whitewater investigation had been found in the personal Clinton quarters of the White House. The First Lady’s fingerprints were on them. The documents had gone mysteriously missing for two years. Mark Fabiani, special White House counsel, immediately stated that there was no problem, according to the Times: “He added that she had testified under oath that she had nothing to do with the documents during the two years they were missing and did not know how they ended up in the family quarters.” Hillary remains the only First Lady in American history to be fingerprinted by the FBI. Those weren’t the only missing Whitewater documents later found in the Clinton White House. Rose Law billing recordswere found years after being sought “in the storage area in the third-floor private residence at the White House where unsolicited gifts to the President and First Lady are stored before being sorted and catalogued.”
Hillary’s Missing Travelgate Documents. In 1996, just before the Whitewater documents emerged – literally the day before – a two-year-old memo emerged, according to The New York Times, showing that Hillary “had played a far greater role in the dismissal of employees of the White House travel office than the Administration has acknowledged.” Oops.
Hillary’s “Unethical Practices” During Watergate. According to Democrat Jerry Zeifman, Hillary “engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules” designed to keep Nixon in office long enough to guarantee a Democratic presidential victory in 1976. Zeifman said that Clinton – then Hillary Rodham — had worked with Teddy Kennedy’s political strategist. More specifically, Zeifman accused Rodham of writing a fraudulent legal brief and grabbing public documents. Zeifman fired her, and later claimed that he wished he had reported her to the Bar.
Hillary has a long history of this behavior. But that won’t stop her from moving forward. The media are less interested in governmental transparency than in picking the next president – and making sure the next president represents the hard, corrupt left.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Hillary Clinton's Skeleton Closet[/h]

Hillary is a unique case among candidates, in that she (and Bill of course) were investigated more closely -- by well-funded government prosecutors with subpoena power -- than any politician in earth's history. She's clearly not as bad as the biggest Hillary-haters think -- hell, I'm not sure Charles Manson is as bad as they think Hillary is. Whatever your politics are, forget about her having 80 mysteriously dead friends, or faking Vincent Foster's suicide. Didn't happen. And I've yet to see a shred of evidence that she's a lesbian, though I'm not sure why her haters think that's such a damning allegation. She did marry an infamously sexy man, after all.Of course, we expect more from presidential candidates than not murdering people. And she has some significant and troubling scandals that get overlooked with all the foo-farah over crazy conspiracy theories. If you've got a scandal that's missing here, please clue me in. But remember, NewsMax, blogs, and Matt Drudge are not reputable sources. I need some real evidence backing it up. Click on the allegation of your choice:
[h=3]A Criminal Hill-Raiser[/h][h=3]Phony Commodity Options Profit[/h][h=3]Whitewater Real Estate Development & the Missing Billing Records[/h][h=3]Pardons and the Riches[/h][h=3]$100,000 Payment From an Educational Foundation[/h][h=3]Conspiracy Theories[/h][h=3]Sources[/h][h=3]Quotes[/h]

 

[Acebb]

guesser is pretending Hillary participated in some hard hitting interview. That is freakin' hilarious.

Anyway:

[h=1]The Clintons: wrangling reporters with rope since 1992[/h]
Washington (CNN) It turns out the Hillary Clinton campaign's reporter-wrangling techniques came from an all-too familiar playbook: Bill Clinton's presidential campaign.

Aides to the former president used a rope to keep photojournalists from getting too close to the Clintons on a public street during a 1992 parade, a technique campaign staffers with Hillary Clinton's 2016 bid reprised this weekend.

 

[russ1945]

Elusive Papers of Law Firm Are Found at White House

By STEPHEN LABATON

Published: January 6, 1996

• 
  [*=left]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5— After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.
Federal and Congressional investigators have issued subpoenas for the documents since 1994, and the White House has said it did not have them. The originals disappeared from the Rose Law Firm, in which Mrs. Clinton was a partner, shortly before Mr. Clinton took office.
The newly discovered documents are copies of billing records from the Rose firm, where Mrs. Clinton helped represent Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan run by James B. McDougal, the Clintons' business partner in the Whitewater land venture. The originals are still missing. Investigators have been seeking the documents to determine the role Mrs. Clinton played in the firm's representation of the savings and loan.
The Clintons' personal lawyer, David E. Kendall, said tonight that the documents show that the work Mrs. Clinton performed was limited both in time and scope, as she has repeatedly said.
But Representative Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who heads the House Banking Committee, said he believed the billing records contradict Mrs. Clinton's account of her involvement with Madison, and show that her legal work for the savings and loan was "extensive and detailed."
Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, Republican of New York, tonight called the discovery of the copies of the records "the second miraculous discovery within the past 24 hours."
Mr. D'Amato, who is chairman of the Senate Whitewater committee, was referring to the disclosure on Thursday of a two-year-old memorandum written by a former Presidential aide. The memorandum said that Mrs. Clinton had played a far greater role in the dismissal of employees of the White House travel office than the Administration has acknowledged.
By their sheer volume -- 115 pages -- and the variety of contacts and conferences they document, the Rose billing records raise new questions about Mrs. Clinton's account of her work that are likely to give new impetus to investigations in Congress and by Federal prosecutors.
For example, the records, which refer to Mrs. Clinton at various points as H.R.C., Hillary Clinton or H. Clinton, show she billed Madison for more than a dozen discussions with an Arkansas businessman, Seth Ward. Mr. Ward played a leading role in one of Madison's largest losses, a $4 million land deal that regulators later criticized the Rose firm for helping structure. Mr. Ward is the father-in-law of the former associate attorney general, Webster L. Hubbell, who was also a partner in the Rose firm.
The release of the records is the latest of several instances in which the Clinton White House has declared a document search to be exhaustive, only to later stumble on important material. For example, White House officials initially said that Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House counsel, left no indication of why he committed suicide on July 20, 1993. But later, an aide found the remnants of a note describing Mr. Foster's disenchantment with Washington.
Mr. Kendall said the Rose billing records were discovered in the White House on Thursday night by Carolyn Huber, a White House aide and former office manager of the Rose firm. He also said Mrs. Clinton was not aware until today that the records had been in the White House.
Henry F. Schuelke, a lawyer for Mrs. Huber, said tonight that she found the records in a storage area in the third-floor private residence at the White House where unsolicited gifts to the President and First Lady are stored before being sorted and catalogued.
Mr. Schuelke said Mrs. Huber did not know who placed the records in the storage area or how long the material might have been there. "It could have been there for months," he said. "She has no idea how long it was there."
He said she discovered the material after she had brought the documents, along with some of the unsolicited gifts, to her own office in the White House East Wing.
When she examined the documents, Mr. Shuelke said, she realized the materials might be relevant to the various inquiries. Mr. Schuelke said she then called him and alerted Mr. Kendall.
Mr. Kendall declined to say why Mrs. Huber had been going through the files or how the Rose documents could have come into the possession of the White House in the first place. He also declined to answer questions about why they were not discovered sooner.
The White House has said it searched Mrs. Huber's files in 1994 in response to subpoenas.
Last Sunday the statute of limitations expired for a variety of civil lawsuits that may be brought against professionals who fraudulently advised corrupt savings associations. On the same day, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency that had supervised the bailout of the savings and loan industry, closed down.
In one of its final acts, the trust corporation issued a report announcing its decision not to bring a civil lawsuit against the President or First Lady for the losses that the Whitewater land venture caused Madison. The savings and loan had provided some of the financing for the failed land venture. The Clintons have cited the report as evidence of complete exoneration in the matter.
But the investigators who wrote the report have said their examination had been hampered by their inability to find the Rose firm billing records.


Congressional and Federal investigators had been searching in vain for the billing records in an effort to reconstruct Mrs. Clinton's role in representing Madison in 1985 and 1986, as the savings and loan was coming under greater financial strain and fearing an upcoming Federal examination.
Government examiners found that the savings and loan, which failed in 1989 at a cost to taxpayers of more than $60 million, was riddled with corruption.
The documents Mrs. Huber found consist of copies of billing invoices to Madison, along with copies of computer printouts that break down which Rose lawyers handled particular matters. The documents are annotated with the red ink handwriting of Mr. Foster, who was also a former Rose partner. It is unclear when Mr. Foster made his annotations. But the computer-generated documents appear to have been printed on Feb. 12, 1992. During the 1992 campaign, Mr. Foster was involved in assisting the Clintons in responding to questions about Mrs. Clinton's role in representing Madison.
Investigators have also been trying to determine whether Mrs. Clinton sought to block Justice Department lawyers from examining files in Mr. Foster's office in the days after his death. White House aides searched the office and brought files to the Clintons' private residence before allowing investigators to look at them.
Mrs. Huber has testified before Congress that she put files from Mr. Foster's office in a closet in the private residence two days after his death.
Mr. Kendall said he knew of no evidence that the copies of the billing records Mrs. Huber found had been in Mr. Foster's office.
During the Presidential campaign and since Mr. Clinton has taken office, Mrs. Clinton has said her involvement with Madison was minimal.
"It was not an area that I practiced in, it was not an area that I really know anything, to speak of, about," she said in an April 23, 1994, news conference, in response to a question about whether she had worked on Madison matters before state regulators appointed by her husband.
Mr. Kendall said tonight that the records would "confirm what we have said all along about the nature and amount of the work done by the Rose Law Firm and Mrs. Clinton for Madison."
The records show that Mrs. Clinton billed for a wide range of legal services on behalf of Madison, including numerous conferences with Madison executives and lawyers in her own law firm. The records also show that Mrs. Clinton reviewed numerous documents at a time when the Rose firm was seeking approval before state regulators for Madison to get a broker-dealer license and to sell preferred stock.
They show that on April 29, 1985, the day before the Rose firm submitted a request for the state securities commissioner to approve a financing plan for Madison, Mrs. Clinton had two telephone conferences totaling one hour. One was with the state securities commissioner who had been appointed three months earlier by then-Governor Clinton. The other was with an associate at the Rose firm, Richard Massey, whom she was supervising. The records do not show the length of the individual calls.
Another billing entry, dated Feb. 17, 1986, shows that Mrs. Clinton worked on a "response to auditors' request," an indication that she and her firm worked with the same auditors that they later sued over their work on Madison.
The records also show that Mr. Massey provided legal advice about a rule that limited Madison's ability to invest in speculative real estate. Examiners later found that Madison executives used Mr. Ward to structure a deal in order to improperly circumvent that rule.
The records show more than a dozen contacts that Mrs. Clinton had with Mr. Ward. They are not clear about what was discussed, but the fact that Mrs. Clinton billed them to Madison shows that they were not connected to whatever other dealings the Rose firm may have had with Mr. Ward, a client of the firm.
One entry indicates that Mrs. Clinton worked on an option agreement that Mr. Ward entered into with Madison in May 1986, in which Madison agreed to pay him $400,000 for a parcel of land.
Mr. McDougal, Madison's founder, has said in an interview in 1992 that he hired Mrs. Clinton's firm at the Governor's request.
By his account, the Governor stopped by the Madison office in Little Rock while jogging one late summer's day in 1984.
"He said they were having a hard time financially," Mr. McDougal recalled. "Bill said, 'Could we give Hillary some legal work?' We got that settled."
The meeting described by Mr. McDougal came at a delicate moment for Madison. Federal examiners had just put the savings and loan under heightened scrutiny because of its deteriorating financial condition. Madison, records show, was already paying another leading Little Rock law firm for legal advice. Nonetheless, the savings and loan began paying the Rose firm $2,000 a month.
Both Clintons have denied Mr. McDougal's account.

 

[SheriffJoe]

“When people diss the government — we’re really dissing ourselves and dissing our democracy,” Clinton said.

Creepy commie!

 

[vitterd]

She should have done an interview with that crack staff at therightscoop.com. Bwaaaaaaaahhhhh

 

[russ1945]

[SIZE=+1]Most progressives tend to think of the sordid topic of Vince Foster's death as the exclusive domain of the Rush Limbaugh right wing radio circuit. But did you know that Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton, and Jonathan Pollard were all simultaneously partners at Rose Law Firm? Yes, that Jonathan Pollard, the unrepentant spy for Israel, arrested and sentenced to life in 1986 for espionage. Did you know that Vince Foster was under CIA scrutiny for the exact same crime at the time of his "suicide" in 1993?[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Forbes magazine reported Foster had ties to Systematics, Inc., a software firm doing business with the NSA. Systematics was a Rose Law Firm client, which had acquired (some say stolen) a program to monitor the world's international banking transactions. According to Troy Underhill of Media Bypass magazine, Foster had $2.73 million stashed in a Swiss account, payment perhaps for sharing this software with Israeli intelligence. When the CIA started to close in, that $2.73m was seized by the U.S. Treasury-just weeks before Foster's death.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Foster had been a long-time friend and companion to Hillary. The two shared a brokerage account called Midlife Partners. When Barbara Walters asked Hillary if she had been having an affair with Vince Foster, Hillary lowered her eyes and told the 20/20 cameras, "He was a very special man." When he died, Hillary said publicly that Vince Foster was the last person who would have committed suicide. Friends reported she was genuinely shocked and aggrieved.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Why, then, did Hillary lie under oath about the last time she saw Vince Foster?[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Testifying before the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC) in 1994, she claimed that the last time she had spoken to Vince Foster was on the phone "the Friday or Saturday before Father's Day." Yet documents from the National Archives, acquired by the New York Megaphone, show that Foster's assistant, Tom Castleton, reported he "saw Hillary Clinton in Foster's office approximately four times during the five weeks he was employed." Castleton didn't start working for Foster until after Father's Day, 1993.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in a 1996 Telegraph (UK) article, Hillary Clinton asked Vince Foster to help her spy on her libertine husband in 1990. Foster hired Jerry Parks, an Arkansas investigator who later worked as the head of security for the Clinton/Gore campaign. According to Parks's widow, "Jerry asked Vince why he needed this stuff on Clinton. He said he needed it for Hillary." When Vince Foster showed up dead in a Washington-area public park in the summer of 1993, Parks was terrified. Two months later Parks was shot nine times at close range, at a stoplight, in his SUV, in Little Rock. Parks's home was then raided by eight Federal agents, including officers from the FBI, IRS, Secret Service, and (unusual for a domestic case) the CIA.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The same night that Foster died, White House staff working for Hillary raided Foster's office. Hillary may have been upset by the news of Foster's death, but, as claimed by Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) in the comments related to the Whitewater scandal, Hillary's chief of staff Margaret Williams removed certain files from Foster's office.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The official story of Foster's death is highly problematic. Supposedly upset at three critical Wall Street Journal editorials, Foster drove to Fort Marcy Park in Arlington, VA, and shot himself in the mouth with his revolver. However, when EMTs and Park Police found him, they couldn't locate his car keys in his pockets. Eyewitness Patrick Knowlton, who had been trained as a private investigator, reported that Foster's car was not in the parking lot during his time of death. But there had been a mysterious man there, glaring at Knowlton. Other eyewitnesses reported they saw men "in red vests" fleeing the area as Foster's body was discovered. A search of the National Archives FBI files later showed the FBI deleted details of the men in "red vests."[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]If Hillary Clinton was truly surprised and upset at the death of her friend, she has done a poor job of discovering why he died. The U.S. Court of appeals ordered Starr, over his objections, to include a 20-page statement by eyewitness Patrick Knowlton. There, Knowlton related how he had undergone a terrifying ordeal of FBI and OIC harassment for testifying about the car and the peculiar glaring man in Fort Marcy Park. Knowlton had voted for Bill Clinton. If Hillary had questions about Foster's "suicide" then why didn't she publicly recognize a Clinton supporter in the Starr Report who had been intimidated for saying what he saw?[/SIZE]

 

[Acebb]

[h=1]The making of a Hillary Clinton echo chamber[/h]
Notice how easy it is for the left to create and disseminate talking points among the gullible sheep:

One day in May, operatives from a Washington-based super PAC gathered New Hampshire mayors, state representatives and local politicos at Saint Anselm College for a day of training.
They rehearsed their personal tales of how they met Hillary Rodham Clinton and why they support her for president. They sharpened their defenses of her record as secretary of state. They scripted their arguments for why the Democratic front-runner has been “a lifetime champion of income opportunity.” And they polished their on-camera presentations in a series of mock interviews.
The objective of the sessions: to nurture a seemingly grass-roots echo chamber of Clinton supporters reading from the same script across the communities that dot New Hampshire, a critical state that holds the nation’s first presidential primary.

^ Of course they have to do this because Hillary is a terrible candidate, awful public speaker, and has no accomplishments anyone can name.

 

[vitterd]

Lmao. Old man spam is bringing up Vince foster. My god you people are so fucking stupid.

 

[ScottL]

[SIZE=+1]Most progressives tend to think of the sordid topic of Vince Foster's death as the exclusive domain of the Rush Limbaugh right wing radio circuit. But did you know that Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton, and Jonathan Pollard were all simultaneously partners at Rose Law Firm? Yes, that Jonathan Pollard, the unrepentant spy for Israel, arrested and sentenced to life in 1986 for espionage.[/SIZE]

[h=1]The Truth About Pollard March 11, 2013 7:44 am[/h] By Jonathan Tobin


Last week, the Knesset took up the issue of Jonathan Pollard, the American Jew who has been serving a life sentence for spying on the United States on behalf of Israel. Knesset Speaker Benjamin Ben-Eliezer praised the spy as a “true Zionist.” Many members joined the 100,000 Israelis who signed a petition calling for Pollard’s release. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat agreed and said he would nominate Pollard for the prestigious Jerusalem Freedom Award. Pollard’s supporters are hoping this campaign on the eve of President Obama’s trip to Israel will bring attention to the case and lead to his freedom. But they are almost certainly mistaken.


In Haaretz, the paper’s Barak Ravid quotes a “senior American official” as saying that the latest round of public advocacy in Israel on behalf of Pollard is having no impact on President Obama. Though the administration is resigned to being subjected to numerous appeals to release the former U.S. Navy analyst who has been in jail since 1985, none of it is likely to persuade the president to grant clemency to Pollard. Indeed, as the official makes clear, the more Israelis and some American Jews treat the spy like a hero, the less likely Obama or anyone else in a position of authority in Washington is to listen to their appeals. That’s a hard concept for those who are trying to free Pollard to understand but if they are to ever succeed, they must start trying.

As I wrote in the March 2011 issue of COMMENTARY in an in-depth analysis of the case on its 25th anniversary, both sides of the long running argument about Pollard have exaggerated their positions to the point of caricature. Those in the U.S. security establishment have wrongly tried to blame Pollard for American intelligence setbacks at the hands of the former Soviet Union in an effort to justify their desire to continue to make an example of him. But Pollard’s backers have also inflated the value of the espionage that he committed on behalf of Israel while also trying to ignore the far more serious damage he did to the Jewish state by souring relations with its sole superpower ally.


Irrespective of these exaggerations, Pollard committed a crime for which he deserved serious punishment. But after more than 27 years in jail the case for mercy for the spy is stronger than ever. As I wrote two years ago, his sentence was disproportionate to that given any other person who spied for an ally as opposed to an enemy or rival nation. Nor is there any conceivable security justification for his continued imprisonment. But the biggest mistake that his supporters have continually made over the years is to think that his freedom will ever be won by efforts that cast him as a martyr. It was Pollard’s own foolish boasts along those lines in a “60 Minutes” interview and in discussions with Wolf Blitzer (the CNN star was then a Jerusalem Post reporter) that caused the government to trash the plea bargain agreement with the spy and led to his draconian sentence to life in prison.


Praise from the Knesset and awards from the city of Jerusalem merely repeat these mistakes.


What Pollard’s fans don’t understand is that lionizing the spy merely increases the desire of the U.S. security establishment to keep him in prison to set an example that spies are punished, not set free to play the hero. The vengeful attitude toward Pollard may stem in part from hostility to Israel by some in Washington. But it’s hard to blame them for resenting a campaign that treats a U.S. Navy employee who broke his oath and did real damage to the United States as somehow deserving praise.


But the pro-Pollard Jews just can’t seem to help themselves. One of the main lessons of 20th century history for Jews was that they couldn’t afford to be silent in the face of a threat or injustice. Such silence or a reliance on traditional modes of quiet diplomacy failed them in the greatest crisis of modern Jewish history during the Holocaust. A desire not to make the same mistake helped inspire the movements to free Soviet Jewry and to support Israel. It inspired in many Jews an understandable contempt for behind-the-scenes diplomacy or reticence on any issue. But it was that discredited strategy of quiet outreach rather than aggressive advocacy that was always the only formula to help free Pollard.


Had the issue been framed solely on the concept that Pollard was a misguided soul who erred but deserved mercy, he probably would have been out of jail a long time ago. But the attempt to cast him as an American “prisoner of Zion” merely strengthened the hands of those U.S. officials who have always been the roadblock to clemency.


At this point, it’s hard to imagine any circumstance in the immediate future that will lead Obama or his successor to free Pollard. But if there is to be any hope, it must begin with the spy’s supporters dropping any mention of anything but a desire for mercy for a man who has already been severely punished. If they ever want to see him freed, there must be an end to awards or rhetoric about his commitment to Zionism.

 

[Acebb]

[h=1]Bernie Sanders Could Win Iowa And New Hampshire. Then Lose Everywhere Else.[/h]

Sanders could win Iowa. He’s up to 30 percent of the vote there, according to Huffington Post Pollster’s estimate. What’s more, Sanders could also win New Hampshire, where he’s at 32 percent of the vote. Nationally, by contrast, Sanders has just 15 percent of the vote and has been gaining ground on Clinton only slowly.

One theory to explain these numbers is that Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are early adopters of Sanders’s populist-left message. It isn’t a bad theory. These states have received the most intense campaign activity so far, and Sanders’s name recognition is higher among Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire — perhaps about 70 percent or 80 percent, based on recent polls — than it is nationally. If the theory is true, Sanders’s numbers will improve nationally as Democrats in other states become as familiar with him as those in Iowa and New Hampshire are.

===
The panic that would ensue if Sanders won both of those states would be hilarious to watch.

 

[russ1945]

^^^^^^
If it happened it would be a wake up call for most campaigns but not Hillary's. The zombies will continue their march and continue to bring ropes wherever they go lol.

They don't remember Vince Foster et al so their memory span is minimal and convenient.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Priceless!

 

[Acebb]

CNN’s Brianna Keiler sat down with Hillary Clinton earlier today in what was Clinton’s first televised interview since she became a 2016 presidential candidate. Keilar brought up issues ranging from Clinton’s strained relationship with the press to her thoughts on whether Americans trust her, but in a later appearance on The Situation Room, Keilar said that Clinton’s pushback did not make her seem more forthcoming.


“I didn’t hear a more open or transparent Hillary Clinton,” Keilar told Jim Sciutto. “I asked her why Bernie Sanders is garnering this support and enthusiasm you don’t seem to among Democrats. She wouldn’t engage on that.”

 

[ScottL]

Priceless!

Damn, Maddow needs to get on Nutri-System.