Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[russ1945]

[h=1]Clinton to testify to Benghazi committee in October[/h]

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google Plus
Share via Email
More Options






Resize Text​

Print Article​

Comments 180​

By Anne Gearan July 25 at 10:14 AM

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a campaign event in New York this month. (Seth Wenig/AP)
Hillary Rodham Clinton will testify on Oct. 22 before the House select committee investigating her role in connection with the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Saturday.
The testimony will be public, Merrill said. It follows months of wrangling between the Republican-led committee and Clinton, whose allies accuse the panel of conducting a fishing expedition for damaging material that might be used against her as she runs for president in 2016.
Clinton had long offered to testify in public, but the committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, had initially said he preferred a private interview. Although he said he was trying to keep the session from becoming a circus, Clinton's team objected on grounds that a closed session could allow Republicans to selectively leak unflattering details.
Clinton's lawyer has also accused the committee of trying to drag out its investigation into 2016, the better to use it as a cudgel against the Democratic front-runner.
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were killed when militants overran two U.S. compounds in the restive Libyan city in September 2012, in the waning months of Clinton's term as secretary of state. She has long said she had no direct role in security decisions surrounding the U.S. facilities, but Republican critics claim that her State Department denied protections that might have prevented the attack.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Clintons' charities got £50million of British aid cash: UK government accused of trying to buy influence with US power family[/h]

• The charity's board includes former president Bill and candidate Hillary
• It has had £48.9million from the UK - more than £20million last year alone
• Critics say its a symptom of controversial pledge on foreign aid spending
• Some claim charity is inefficient and taxpayers could simply be funding management charges

By DANIEL MARTIN and GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 18:53 EST, 24 July 2015 | UPDATED: 08:20 EST, 25 July 2015

1.4kshares

303View comments​

Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money has been siphoned through charities linked to Hillary Clinton, it emerged last night.
British politicians – including Gordon Brown – stand accused of diverting huge amounts of cash through the organisations after falling under the spell of the US presidential candidate and her husband Bill.
At least £50 million of taxpayer-funded foreign aid money has gone to Clinton charities, which are at the centre of allegations in the US that foreign governments used donations to buy influence.
The UK is one of the biggest donors, handing over more than £20 million last year alone to the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), an organisation chaired by former President Bill, 68, and whose board includes the couple's daughter Chelsea, 35. Since 2011, a total of £48.9 million has gone into the coffers of this charity alone.

+1


Controversy: At least £50 million of taxpayer-funded foreign aid money has gone to Clinton charities, which are at the centre of allegations in the US that foreign governments used donations to buy influence

Tory backbenchers say the revelation is symptomatic of the fact that the Department for International Development has so much money to spend that large amounts have to be simply handed to global charities, often leading to huge amounts of waste.
The Clinton charities are involved in running projects receiving some £107 million from DfID since 2009 – although not all of this money went to their organisations.
But critics are concerned that waste at CHAI is so high that British taxpayers may end up paying millions of pounds of management charges – money which they say would be much better spent on front-line disaster relief.
[h=2]RELATED ARTICLES[/h]

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• Five airlines under investigation for price gouging after... Barack Obama's plea for UK to stay in the EU infuriates Tory...

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



Britain spends £12 billion a year on overseas aid, thanks to a new law which commits the Government to spending 0.7 per cent of national income on international development.
CHAI spends its funds on improving the treatment of HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis in the developing world, mainly in Africa.
But a new book claimed that foreign governments and individuals received favourable treatment from the US government in return for donations to Clinton family charities. The revelations have proved an embarrassment for Mrs Clinton, 67, who has moved to distance herself from the charities.
[h=3]DAVE'S LAST-MINUTE £415MILLION HANDOUT JUST TO MEET 0.7% FOREIGN AID SPENDING TARGET[/h]Aid officials wrote a cheque for nearly half a billion pounds to an international charity in a desperate effort to meet David Cameron's spending target, it emerged last night.
The extraordinary sum was rushed to the Swiss-based Global Fund with only days left to go to ensure the Government met its controversial pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on aid.
It meant Britain ended up providing more than a fifth of the organisation's total budget – twice the planned scale of donation, it was claimed last night.
The Global Fund pays its 600 staff an average salary package of almost £130,000, and has also recently commissioned an expensive new lakeside headquarters in Geneva. The body was set up by the G8 to fight Aids, tuberculosis and malaria.
Details of the enormous pledge in December 2013 were made public in a National Audit Office report.
Last night a Department for International Development spokesman said the report concluded the timing of the donation 'made no impact on the scale of our investment'.
He added: 'With our support, the Global Fund will save a life every three minutes.'


In 2008, Mr Brown addressed a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton Foundation, the main family charity, revealed that the UK Government had been making donations since the following year – when Mrs Clinton took office as US Secretary of State.
The UK's donations to the Clinton charities took off after then International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell met Mrs Clinton at a UN summit in New York in 2010.
An examination of published payments over £500 made by DfID in 2014 reveals that CHAI received £20.2 million, with £4.8million spent up to the end of May this year. In 2013, £13.1 million was handed over, with £9.6 million going to CHAI in 2012 and £1.1 million in 2011.
Before this date there are no published figures. It is not known how much went to the Clinton Foundation.
Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, said: 'The fact we are spending more and more on aid when we are massively in debt is bad enough, but when it is being tossed away for vanity reasons to ingratiate UK politicians with the rich and powerful in the US … I think most people would find that distasteful and unacceptable.'
Jonathan Isaby, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'The ludicrous aid target means all too often DfID officials are desperate to spend money in any way they can, which is nothing more than irresponsible. We need DfID to provide far more transparency.'
A DFID spokesman said: 'The Department for International Development does not fund the Clinton Foundation. DFID does fund the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent NGO founded in 2010.'
The Clinton Foundation said: 'All contributions from DfID have gone to CHAI. We can confirm that DfID donated to CHAI pre-2010 when it was part of the Clinton Foundation. CHAI is an independent, affiliated entity.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...buy-influence-power-family.html#ixzz3guxIHLUN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[ScottL]

Nobody read #1158 lol

 

[Dave007inVegas]

From post 1161.

Clinton's lawyer has also accused the committee of trying to drag out its investigation into 2016, the better to use it as a cudgel against the Democratic front-runner.

It would seem to me that if there is no incriminating evidence to be found, Clinton's lawyer would welcome her testifying.

Any why does she need a lawyer in the first place if she has done nothing wrong?

This is another smell test fail.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Nobody read #1158 lol

I got to the part where you mentioned the forum asshole and stopped.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]John Boehner: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Poor Judgement’ Has Compromised ‘National Security’[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Rodham Clinton / AP​

BY: Morgan Chalfant
July 24, 2015 4:09 pm

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) demanded Friday that Hillary Clinton hand over her email server “immediately” in light ofreports that two inspectors general have recommended the Department of Justice launch a probe into the former secretary of state’s use of a personal email account.
According to The Weekly Standard, Boehner accused Clinton of “undermin[ing] our national security” by exclusively using a private email system to conduct State Department business.
The inspectors called for a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email practices after concluding that her personal email account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails,” according to a memo written on June 29 by Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy.
“If Secretary Clinton truly has nothing to hide, she can prove it by immediately turning over her server to the proper authorities and allowing them to examine the complete record,” Boehner said of the revelations Friday.
“What these reports demonstrate is the inherent risk of conducting our nation’s diplomacy and foreign policy on your home email and personal server,” the House Speaker continued. “Secretary Clinton has repeatedly claimed that the work-related emails on her private home server did not include classified information, but we know that is not true.”
During a March press conference regarding the initial story about her exclusive use of a personal email system, Hillary Clinton insisted that she “did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” describing herself as “well-aware of the classification requirements.”
Boehner said that Clinton exhibited “poor judgement” in using her private email system that as a result has compromised U.S. national security.
“She has claimed she is well-aware of what matters are classified and what are not, and yet she set up a personal email server to discuss matters of national security despite guidance to the contrary from both her State Department and the White House,” Boehner explained. “Her poor judgement has undermined our national security and it is time for her to finally do the right thing.”
The Justice Department insisted Friday that the investigation request has nothing to with criminal wrongdoing.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal the same day, an internal government review revealed that a least four emails sent from Clinton’s personal account during her time at State contained classified information.

 

[JDeuce]

"It's been nice speaking with your little company. That'll be $250,000!"

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]GREEN: HILLARY CLINTON’S VAST NON-RIGHT WING PROBLEM[/h]

139​

0​

86​

AP Photo/Frank Franklin II

by LLOYD GREEN24 Jul 2015312

[h=2]Is Hillary Clinton a criminal, one who broke the law when she decided to homebrew her emails and compromise national security? That’s the question Attorney General Loretta Lynch faces, according to a report in The New York Times.[/h]It seems that Clinton may have stored “hundreds of potentially classified emails” on her personal server in possible violation of the law.
That Clinton’s move was stupid and bad politics is beyond doubt. But even worse, it may have been criminal, according to the two Inspectors General who want a Justice Department investigation into the latest Clintonian escapade.
Politically, this latest bombshell means that Clinton can no longer rely on the Trump Circus as a protective cocoon. Trashing illegal aliens and humiliating
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

47%​

are one thing. Like it or not, much of America applauds. But a Secretary State of State who jeopardizes classified information for personal convenience is a completely different story. Can you say betrayal?To put things in context, China had to go to the trouble of hacking the computers at the Office of Personnel Management, and then stealing personal information. By contrast, it looks like Clinton simply gave it away by leaving the keys in the ignition switch, while leaving the motor running. Clinton excelled at Wellesley, and went to Yale Law School, but at this moment she looks two-bit crook caught on a Seven-Eleven video camera, smiling and pointing to the loot as she runs out of the store.
All this comes at a bad time for Clinton, as the country was already having doubts about Clinton herself, and what she was selling. The reality is that Swing-state America already distrusts and dislikes her, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll. An honesty deficit isn’t a deal-breaker, but when coupled with an inverted favorability rating that can be a lethal combination, a poisoned chalice for Clinton’s presidential ambitions. Marie Antoinette never won an election.
Unlike Bill Clinton, who could grope Monica with one hand while feeling your pain with the other, Hillary strikes the public as imperious and aloof. Folks didn’t believe Bill, but they liked him. Hillary, on the other hand, reminds you of someone who would fit right in with House Lannister on Game of Thrones, and when you’re running for president that’s a dubious honor.
Clinton’s troubles are further compounded by the fact that in Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa, voters are actually more comfortable with some of the would-be Republican nominees than with Clinton. Clinton trails Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

80%​

in each of those states where she is also viewed negatively, while the three Republicans are judged as honest.Further, in each of those states, Clinton is seen as “not” caring about voters’ “needs and problems.” In contrast, Walker and Rubio get decent marks on the empathy scale.
To add to Hillary’s woes, white working class disdain for Clinton and the Democrats is on parade.
According to Stan Greenberg, Bill Clinton’s pollster, working class men are even less fond of Hillary than they were of Barack Obama. As Greenberg exclaimed to his own surprise, “amazingly Democratic gains with working class women are partially offset by losses with white working class men. With the men, Clinton is trailing Obama’s performance by 5 points.”
Still, none of this should have come as a total surprise given the drumbeat of revelations about the non-stop Clinton cash dash, earlier stories about Hillary’s email system, and her demeanor that screams “let them eat cake.” It takes a far more dexterous politician than Hillary to proclaim solidarity with working Americans, while simultaneously emptying Wall Street’s wallets into her campaign coffers.
Obviously, plenty can happen between now and November 2016, and polls a year out are poor predictors. Still, they tell a story. Just as the Republican core is uncomfortable with the GOP Establishment and looks to Donald Trump, America is far from sold on a Clinton presidency, one where Hillary occupies the Oval Office.
But it’s no longer about just about optics, polls, crowds, and visuals. It’s coming down to a drip-drip-drip of foot-dragging and wrongdoing by Clinton and the Obama administration. It’s about whether or not Clinton broke the Criminal Code, and whether or not the government itself is above the law.

• Item. According to a June 29, 2015 memo obtained by the New York Times, inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies concluded that Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”

• Item. According to a memo sent on July 17, 2015, also obtained by the New York Times, the inspectors general determined “that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information.”

• Item. On Monday, Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court for the District of Columbia zinged government lawyers about why that had dragged their feet in responding to Freedom of Information requests made by the Associated Press, some of which were four years old. As the Judge put it, “for reasons known only to itself,” the State Department “has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding.”

• Item. On Wednesday, the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks announced that it planned to call Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff to explain why the State Department has not produced documents subpoenaed by the Committee. As Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
  
  85%​
  
  
  
  
  
  , the committee chairman, framed it, “The State Department has used every excuse to avoid complying with fundamental requests for documents.” Can you say cover-up?

If the Department of Justice commences a criminal investigation into Clinton, expect to see a distracted candidate juggling the demands of the grand jury and the campaign. It will not be pretty.
If DOJ and Attorney General Lynch decline to move forward with an investigation, Clinton will be able to heave a sigh of momentarily relief, with the knowledge that she will be followed through the primaries, and possibly beyond, by the cloud and stench of criminality and distrust.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

^^^

The Granny will not be on the DOJ’s radar. Anyone who thinks there’s the slightest possibility of that happening is delusional.

Congress may prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she broke the law but they are powerless to do anything about it.

Will it hurt her candidacy? One who would certainly think so but stranger things have happened.

 

[russ1945]

Hillary Hillary Hillary. What are you thinking. You are saying the messages found so far were not classified at the time they were sent and/or received. How could they be classified if no one knew about them but you. If they are classified now they sure as hell should have been classified then when they were more relevant etc. Why don’t you do this country a favor and withdraw from the Presidential race and allow your fellow Democrats the opportunity to rally around someone who can be trusted. All of the lies you have told in the past cannot be topped with this latest one. “not classified at the time, really.” Your campaign is directed at the uninformed but this latest “excuse” is so full of holes it is not even funny. There is nothing funny about your past as more and more gets exposed. Time to put your ego aside and look at the greater good. I don’t know if you are capable of doing that but Trey will dust off your lies many of which have to do with exonerating you from any responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. The emails and the Foundation are the icing on the cake. Time to accept the fact that you have been exposed. You are an embarrassment to the integrity of your party and the fact that they have backed you to date may soon reflect on them more and more. You can’t even keep your husband under control and you think you can run this country….whatever. Do everyone a favor, even if you don’t admit guilt to any or all the accusations directed at you just walk away and let it die on the table.

 

[russ1945]

PHOTO: No one interested in ‘Young Americans for Hillary’ party

JULY 26, 2015BY OLAF EKBERG

• Share on Facebook1.8k
• Tweet This478
• Reddit2
• 2.2k

Every party has a party pooper and judging by this flyer, it’s Hillary Clinton.
Here’s an untouched flyer advertising a “Young Americans for Hillary”event for students, indicating there isn’t much energy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign among the youth in New Hampshire.
A photo of a flyer was posted on Twitter Friday for the party in Manchester, New Hampshire today.

Sorry picture did not post.


No one interested in 'Young Americans for Hillary' party...

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Virginia Democrats Overstate Success of Hillary Fundraising Event[/h]Fundraising shortfall latest sign that Clinton lacks footing in key swing state
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Clinton / AP​

BY: Brent Scher
July 23, 2015 2:50 pm

A fundraiser headlined by Hillary Clinton for the Virginia Democratic Party was hailed by party officials as a huge success that brought in more than $1 million, but campaign disclosure forms show that this figure was far from accurate.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D.) hosted the June 26 dinner in Fairfax, Va.. While all proceeds went to the Democratic Party of Virginia, it was treated as a Clinton campaign event.
MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald wrote that the event “felt more like June 2016 than June 2016 [sic],” and that “speaker after speaker praised Clinton as if the Democratic nomination were a fait accompli.”
Seitz-Wald was also told by party officials that “more than $1 million” was raised, but an analysis of federal and state campaign filings indicates that the success of the event was overstated.
“All the proceeds” from the event, according to Seitz-Wald, went to the Democratic Party of Virginia, though it says that some of the donations went to another group, Common Good VA, .
The Democratic Party of Virginia’s monthly filing to the Federal Election Commission show that just over $208,000 was raised during the month of June. Only $78,650 of the contributions came on June 26. The bulk of the listed contributions on that day were for $125—which was the ticket price for theevent.
Much of the money raised at the event, however, was not filed to the FEC but rather to Virginia’s Department of Elections.
According to the most recent quarterly campaign filing, the Democratic Party of Virginia brought in a total of $1,052,510 from April 1 to June 30.
An analysis of each itemized contribution made during this period shows that only $237,000 of that was given on June 26 and that the bulk of the cash on that date came from Democratic state groups such as $65,000 from the House Democratic Caucus and $60,000 from the Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus.
An additional $100,000 was given by prominent Philip Munger, a prominent Democratic donor whose father, Charles, was the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway.
Common Good VA, a committee set up by McAuliffe to raise political donations during his time as governor, also took some of the money raised through the dinner. Common Good VA took in$148,000 on June 26, according to the committee’s most recent campaign filing.
The $463,650 worth of donations made on June 26 to the Democratic Party of Virginia and Common Good VA falls far short of the number previously stated by party officials, but could be expected given the reported trouble that event organizers had filling the event.
Tickets for the event—which were sold for both $30 and $125—were reportedly being given away for free on the day of the event.
The Democratic Party of Virginia also says that donations included in the over $1 million that it says was raised through the event came in before the event and therefore were not included in theWashington Free Beacon’s calculations. Donations associated with the event also could still come in, it says.
Though Clinton was not raising money for her own campaign, the event was seen as important because winning Virginia, typically a swing state, will be crucial for her in 2016.
Polling data released on Wednesday by Quinnipiac University found Clinton trailing multiple major Republican candidates in Virginia.
The poll of 1,209 Virginia voters found that she was seen favorably by 41 percent and unfavorably by 50 percent.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]GOP FRONTRUNNER TRUMP CALLS DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER CLINTON “CRIMINAL”[/h]

by ALEX SWOYER26 Jul 2015Washington, DC164

[h=2]GOP frontrunner Donald Trump attacked the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, calling her email practices during her time as Secretary of State “criminal.”[/h]“What she did is far worse than what Gen. [David] Petraeus did, and he’s gone down in disgrace,” Trump said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “What she did is criminal.”
Trump weighed in after reports that some of the emails on Clinton’s private email server contained classified information during her time as Secretary of State.
“Trump refused to elaborate when pressed by CNN host Jake Tapper, who noted that federal inspectors general had cited security rather than criminal concerns. But Trump said he was surprised at how Clinton has avoided serious damage from the email revelations,” reported Politico.
“She’s been protected,” said Trump. “It’s amazing to me.”
During a campaign stop in Iowa, Clinton spoke to reporters saying she was “confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.”
“They can fight or argue over it, that’s up to them,” Clinton said. “I can just tell you what the facts are, and there’s nothing contradicted in those facts I’m telling you by anything anyone has said so far.”
Trump also discussed his view on illegal immigration during the interview with CNN.
“I’m gonna get rid of the bad ones fast, and I’m gonna send them back,” the GOP frontrunner stated – saying it is unclear right now what to do with the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants who have not broken the law, but are currently in the United States.
“It’s a very big subject and a very complicated subject,” Trump stated.
During the CNN interview, Trump also accused the Des Moines Register reporters for “lying repeatedly about his campaign,” according to Politico.
This statement came after the Des Moines Register wrote an editorial blasting the Trump campaign, and Trump as a result, banning a Des Moines Register from obtaining credentials to one of his campaign events in Iowa.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]BRIT HUME: HILLARY HAS PROVEN HERSELF TO BE A LIAR MANY TIMES[/h]

by PAM KEY26 Jul 2015153

On this week’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday” senior political contributor Brit Hume said that since investigators have now found classified information was on four of the 40 email samples they looked at from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private account, she has “proven herself to be” “a liar.”
Hume said, “I was stunned by the polls. I didn’t believe that she had fallen that far in the eyes of voters in states where she would normally be expected to get a decent reception. So I think it’s striking and I think this whole e-mail controversy feeds that. And the news that she has inspectors general looking at what 40 of her emails — 40 out of thousands, and found four instances in which there was classified material, that they said was classified at the time the e-mails were written and sent. That to me says — that goes to the question of whether she is as I think she’s proven herself to be many times a liar. She said there’s no classified information in the e-mails and on a small sample they found 10% of the classified information. If the Justice Department will ever do anything about it is highly dubious. But it feeds the public perception for her.”

 

[Acebb]

Hillary Clinton on Keystone pipeline: "I will refrain from commenting."



What leadership. She's terrified to answer a question on anything.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Bill Clinton sexual-harassment accuser Kathleen Willey has launched an anti-Hillary Clinton website titled “A Scandal A Day.”

The site is partially aimed at recruiting other women who may have been assaulted by the former president.

Calling Hillary Clinton “without a doubt the most corrupt politician that this nation has ever seen,” Willey announced the launch of her new website Sunday on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM and online.

Willey, the former volunteer aide to Bill Clinton who says she was sexually harassed by the president in the 1990s, explained the website is part information-oriented and part political activism.

“The Clintons have made it extremely easy for me,” she said in the radio interview. “I don’t have to do a lot of research, because it’s not just a scandal a day. It’s about two or three scandals a day. So what I’m doing is kind of a compilation of these scandals and explaining them in simple terms so most people can understand what’s going on, and what they’re up to and why they are lying every day.”

 

[russ1945]

Thanks Dave - we beat her to the punch.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Thanks Dave - we beat her to the punch.

Well I’ll tell you Russ, I suspect that Willey’s web site will have about as much success at swaying voters as you and I do posting here.

Which is to say not much. Once a Paul always a Paul.

 

[SheriffJoe]

"A Scandal A Day"

@)

 

[ScottL]

Well I’ll tell you Russ, I suspect that Willey’s web site will have about as much success at swaying voters as you and I do posting here.

Which is to say not much. Once a Paul always a Paul.

Flipping the dial in the car today and a radio host says, "Hillary could barrel through Wash DC blowing up people in a tank with a Russian flag on it, then post it on the net, and most democrats would still vote for her."