He is Walter mark whiteman. That is fact. That is him asking for female companionship on a dating site surrounded by purple flowers. Those are facts.
I I know you don't care but you should see this loon on Facebook and all over the internet. He does and posts this same shit everywhere. A total and complete psychopath
Haha, I would not doubt it at all. The less I know about him the better though. He's clearly unstable and someone that you don't want to be messing with. I think of the innocent people that he might harm if something triggers in his brain and I don't want to be responsible for that. He's that big of a psycho. But, yea... I think it's hilarious how him knowing I'm part native and wanted to shed some lbs 10 years ago after partying too much is some kind of groundbreaking birther style info, haha.
I understand. He is very dangerous and unstable.
He is telling people they are insane for thinking Hillary will win the election.....she is the prohibitive favorite. He did the same thing with Obama in 2008 and 2012. All this while he claimed Fred Thompson was next president. That is truly psychotic behavior
Surprise! The uneducated lard-ass won the "most annoying poster" award - OUTSIDE of the poli forum:
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1019500
Loser!@#0
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1019500
Loser!@#0
Joe, just imagine a life where you aren't viewed as a creepy stalker who's wrong about everything! Imagine that life and then go try to make the necessary changes to get there. If you need help along the way just PM me. You don't have to be this person the rest of your life. Change is possible. Look at one of your fellow rightiest Bruce Jenner. If you want to be a chick, be a chick... if you want to be less creepy, be less creepy... if you want to be intelligent, try to be intelligent.
It's your life. I would seriously consider changing though, your 10+ year documented history is not something anyone should be proud of.
It's your life. I would seriously consider changing though, your 10+ year documented history is not something anyone should be proud of.
Fleeing Hillary: Top Dem money man departs because Clinton hasn’t answered ethics questions
N.Y. businessman Jon Cooper, enlisted for ‘HillStarters,’ decides against tapping donor network
A growing chorus of party insiders is calling for a credible challenger to enter the primary race against Hillary Rodham Clinton, either to provide a viable liberal alternative or at least to test Mrs. Clinton in preparation for a general ... more >
By S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Sunday, April 26, 2015
A top Democratic moneyman recruited by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign has put fundraising activities on hold, saying he can’t do it with a clear conscience because the former secretary of state has too many unanswered questions swirling around her.
New York businessman Jon Cooper, who Team Clinton enlisted for its elite corps of early fundraisers known as “HillStarters,” said that he decided not to tap his donor network for Mrs. Clinton because she hasn’t provided enough answers about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she ran the State Department, her exclusive use of private email for official business as America’s top diplomat and her commitment to liberal priorities.
“I’m officially on the fence,” said Mr. Cooper, a bundler for President Obama’s campaigns who is active in Democratic politics in New York, whichMrs. Clinton represented in the U.S. Senate and where she has set up her campaign headquarters.
PHOTOS: See Obama's biggest White House fails
Mr. Cooper said he was writing a fundraising email to the roughly 10,000 people in his network when he realized that his heart wasn’t in it.
“I was sitting there trying to draft the email, and I just couldn’t do it,” he told The Washington Times.
Mr. Cooper, who is openly gay and married to longtime partner Robert Cooper, said he was disappointed with how long it took Mrs. Clinton to support gay marriage as a constitutional right plus her reluctance to back a liberal economic agenda, including raising the federal minimum wage.
PHOTOS: Christians in Hollywood
But his concerns about Mrs. Clinton only deepened with revelations about potential conflicts of interest from the Clinton Foundation pocketing donations from foreign entities with business pending before the State Department and her use of a private email in office that may have violated federal open records laws.
“It’s just the drip, drip, drip that is a little concerning, and I just wish that there would have been a more forceful response from the Clinton campaign to some of this,” he said.
He hasn’t ruled out eventually supporting Mrs. Clinton, especially if, as expected, she wins the Democratic presidential nomination. And the Clinton campaign likely will still benefit from a powerful fundraising operation, despite Mr. Cooper’s early absence from the effort.
But Mr. Cooper’s misgivings, and his willingness to make them public, underscores a growing angst in the upper echelon of the Democratic Party about the Clinton campaign.
“I’m not saying there are any inherent weakness[es] in Hillary as a candidate, but there are some valid questions that are being raised by good people, and I think we need to have better answers to some of these questions,” said Mr. Cooper.
“I would have hoped there would have been a strong and forceful and complete and detailed response to the questions that were raised,” he said. “That’s a sign that they still need to do a bit of a better job in the top organizational structure of the campaign. They don’t really have complete answers to these questions.”
He is among a growing chorus of party insiders calling for a credible challenger to enter the primary race against Mrs. Clinton, either to provide a viable liberal alternative or at least to test Mrs. Clinton in preparation for a general election contest.
“I’m going to be supporting a Democrat. I just want it to be the strongest possible candidate,” he said.
The Clinton campaign last week attempted to allay the mounting concerns with a memo to prominent Democratic supporters and donors. The memo by Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon insisted that there is not a “shred of evidence” that Mrs. Clinton misused her office as secretary of state.
The campaign has struggled to push back against allegations of pay-for-favors at the Clinton Foundation in the upcoming book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”
The book, by conservative political adviser Peter Schweizer, argues that the Clintons got rich off speaking fees and donations from various foreign entities with business with the State Department under Mrs. Clinton.
The deals include a free trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s investments in the South American nation, development projects in Haiti after a devastating earthquake in 2010 and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline that occurred while the project was under State Department review, according to previews of the book.
The campaign attempted to dismiss it as a right-wing hit job, but further reporting by The New York Times revealed that the Clinton Foundationaccepted $2.35 million from a businessman involved in deals that helped Russia nearly corner the world uranium market with State Departmentapproval.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons despite an agreement signed with the Obama administration that donations to thefoundation would be disclosed to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.
The deal gave the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, control of uranium mines stretching from Asia to the Western U.S., including half of America’s uranium supply.
Shortly after the Russians announced plans to buy uranium-mining giant Uranium One, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and the deal paid Mr. Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, according to the newspaper.
That was about five times Mr. Clinton’s typical speaking fee.
Mrs. Clinton also attempted to put the email scandal behind her last month at a press conference where she explained that it was simply “convenient” to mingle personal and work email. But the issue became entangled in a House investigation of the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Mrs. Clinton has been asked to testify this week but is expected to decline the invitation.
Mr. Cooper said he wants to be able to get “deeply passionate” about his party’s candidate.
“For me personally, I want to be able to come home each day and look my kids in the eye and justify everything that I’ve done that day,” he said. “If I come out wholeheartedly for Hillary, I’m going to have to explain why I’m doing that, because I can just sit this out. I’m not going to, but I could.”
Previous12next
Entire Story
Copyright © 2015 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
N.Y. businessman Jon Cooper, enlisted for ‘HillStarters,’ decides against tapping donor network
A growing chorus of party insiders is calling for a credible challenger to enter the primary race against Hillary Rodham Clinton, either to provide a viable liberal alternative or at least to test Mrs. Clinton in preparation for a general ... more >
By S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Sunday, April 26, 2015
A top Democratic moneyman recruited by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign has put fundraising activities on hold, saying he can’t do it with a clear conscience because the former secretary of state has too many unanswered questions swirling around her.
New York businessman Jon Cooper, who Team Clinton enlisted for its elite corps of early fundraisers known as “HillStarters,” said that he decided not to tap his donor network for Mrs. Clinton because she hasn’t provided enough answers about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she ran the State Department, her exclusive use of private email for official business as America’s top diplomat and her commitment to liberal priorities.
“I’m officially on the fence,” said Mr. Cooper, a bundler for President Obama’s campaigns who is active in Democratic politics in New York, whichMrs. Clinton represented in the U.S. Senate and where she has set up her campaign headquarters.
PHOTOS: See Obama's biggest White House fails
Mr. Cooper said he was writing a fundraising email to the roughly 10,000 people in his network when he realized that his heart wasn’t in it.
“I was sitting there trying to draft the email, and I just couldn’t do it,” he told The Washington Times.
Mr. Cooper, who is openly gay and married to longtime partner Robert Cooper, said he was disappointed with how long it took Mrs. Clinton to support gay marriage as a constitutional right plus her reluctance to back a liberal economic agenda, including raising the federal minimum wage.
PHOTOS: Christians in Hollywood
But his concerns about Mrs. Clinton only deepened with revelations about potential conflicts of interest from the Clinton Foundation pocketing donations from foreign entities with business pending before the State Department and her use of a private email in office that may have violated federal open records laws.
“It’s just the drip, drip, drip that is a little concerning, and I just wish that there would have been a more forceful response from the Clinton campaign to some of this,” he said.
He hasn’t ruled out eventually supporting Mrs. Clinton, especially if, as expected, she wins the Democratic presidential nomination. And the Clinton campaign likely will still benefit from a powerful fundraising operation, despite Mr. Cooper’s early absence from the effort.
But Mr. Cooper’s misgivings, and his willingness to make them public, underscores a growing angst in the upper echelon of the Democratic Party about the Clinton campaign.
“I’m not saying there are any inherent weakness[es] in Hillary as a candidate, but there are some valid questions that are being raised by good people, and I think we need to have better answers to some of these questions,” said Mr. Cooper.
“I would have hoped there would have been a strong and forceful and complete and detailed response to the questions that were raised,” he said. “That’s a sign that they still need to do a bit of a better job in the top organizational structure of the campaign. They don’t really have complete answers to these questions.”
He is among a growing chorus of party insiders calling for a credible challenger to enter the primary race against Mrs. Clinton, either to provide a viable liberal alternative or at least to test Mrs. Clinton in preparation for a general election contest.
“I’m going to be supporting a Democrat. I just want it to be the strongest possible candidate,” he said.
The Clinton campaign last week attempted to allay the mounting concerns with a memo to prominent Democratic supporters and donors. The memo by Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon insisted that there is not a “shred of evidence” that Mrs. Clinton misused her office as secretary of state.
The campaign has struggled to push back against allegations of pay-for-favors at the Clinton Foundation in the upcoming book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”
The book, by conservative political adviser Peter Schweizer, argues that the Clintons got rich off speaking fees and donations from various foreign entities with business with the State Department under Mrs. Clinton.
The deals include a free trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s investments in the South American nation, development projects in Haiti after a devastating earthquake in 2010 and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline that occurred while the project was under State Department review, according to previews of the book.
The campaign attempted to dismiss it as a right-wing hit job, but further reporting by The New York Times revealed that the Clinton Foundationaccepted $2.35 million from a businessman involved in deals that helped Russia nearly corner the world uranium market with State Departmentapproval.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons despite an agreement signed with the Obama administration that donations to thefoundation would be disclosed to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.
The deal gave the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, control of uranium mines stretching from Asia to the Western U.S., including half of America’s uranium supply.
Shortly after the Russians announced plans to buy uranium-mining giant Uranium One, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and the deal paid Mr. Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, according to the newspaper.
That was about five times Mr. Clinton’s typical speaking fee.
Mrs. Clinton also attempted to put the email scandal behind her last month at a press conference where she explained that it was simply “convenient” to mingle personal and work email. But the issue became entangled in a House investigation of the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Mrs. Clinton has been asked to testify this week but is expected to decline the invitation.
Mr. Cooper said he wants to be able to get “deeply passionate” about his party’s candidate.
“For me personally, I want to be able to come home each day and look my kids in the eye and justify everything that I’ve done that day,” he said. “If I come out wholeheartedly for Hillary, I’m going to have to explain why I’m doing that, because I can just sit this out. I’m not going to, but I could.”
Previous12next
Entire Story
Copyright © 2015 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
This deserved more attention than all of dots leading to Hillary....whatever. Make the Clinton's fork over part of their haul. lol
Did the General have a secret email acct (right):
Ex-General, CIA Chief Petraeus Gets probation, $100,000 Fine in Leak Case
EMAIL
BY: Reuters
April 23, 2015 4:26 pm
By Colleen Jenkins
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Reuters) – Former U.S. military commander and CIA director David Petraeus was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine on Thursday after pleading guilty to mishandling classified information.
The retired four-star general admitted to giving the information to his mistress, who was writing his biography. He pleaded guilty in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina, to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.
The judge raised the fine from the $40,000 recommended in a plea deal, noting it needed to be higher to be punitive.
“This increased fine amount is necessary so the combined sentence reflects the seriousness of the offense,” said U.S. Magistrate Judge David Keesler during the hearing.
Petraeus, 62, who served stints as the top U.S. commander in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resigned from the CIA in 2012 after it was revealed that he was having an affair with the biographer, Army Reserve officer Paula Broadwell.
Petraeus, dressed in a dark suit and blue tie, showed no emotion as he read from a prepared statement.
“I also want to take this opportunity to apologize to those closest to me and others for the pain that my actions have caused,” he said in court.
Keesler noted that defense attorneys submitted letters from heads of state and high-ranking U.S. military officials calling Petraeus one of the finest military leaders of his generation.
Keesler said he had “committed a grave but very uncharacteristic error in judgment.”
Civil liberties and government transparency advocates had questioned the plea deal, saying the government’s lenient treatment of Petraeus suggested prosecutors maintain double standards. Defendants in other leak cases have received harsher punishments, including prison.
Petraeus’ attorney, David Kendall, said in court it would have been unprecedented to incarcerate the former general for the charge he faced.
“This is not a case about the dissemination to the public of classified information,” Kendall said. “No classified information appeared in the biography. Not a single syllable.”
U.S. prosecutor James Melendres noted that Petraeus had been entrusted with the government’s highest secrets.
“The defendant betrayed that trust,” he said in court.
(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington; Editing by Eric Walsh and Letitia Stein)
Did the General have a secret email acct (right):
Ex-General, CIA Chief Petraeus Gets probation, $100,000 Fine in Leak Case
Former CIA director and retired general David H. Petraeus speaks as the keynote speaker at the University of Southern California annual dinner for veterans and ROTC students, in Los Angeles, California March 26, 2013 / Reuters
BY: Reuters
April 23, 2015 4:26 pm
By Colleen Jenkins
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Reuters) – Former U.S. military commander and CIA director David Petraeus was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine on Thursday after pleading guilty to mishandling classified information.
The retired four-star general admitted to giving the information to his mistress, who was writing his biography. He pleaded guilty in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina, to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.
The judge raised the fine from the $40,000 recommended in a plea deal, noting it needed to be higher to be punitive.
“This increased fine amount is necessary so the combined sentence reflects the seriousness of the offense,” said U.S. Magistrate Judge David Keesler during the hearing.
Petraeus, 62, who served stints as the top U.S. commander in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resigned from the CIA in 2012 after it was revealed that he was having an affair with the biographer, Army Reserve officer Paula Broadwell.
Petraeus, dressed in a dark suit and blue tie, showed no emotion as he read from a prepared statement.
“I also want to take this opportunity to apologize to those closest to me and others for the pain that my actions have caused,” he said in court.
Keesler noted that defense attorneys submitted letters from heads of state and high-ranking U.S. military officials calling Petraeus one of the finest military leaders of his generation.
Keesler said he had “committed a grave but very uncharacteristic error in judgment.”
Civil liberties and government transparency advocates had questioned the plea deal, saying the government’s lenient treatment of Petraeus suggested prosecutors maintain double standards. Defendants in other leak cases have received harsher punishments, including prison.
Petraeus’ attorney, David Kendall, said in court it would have been unprecedented to incarcerate the former general for the charge he faced.
“This is not a case about the dissemination to the public of classified information,” Kendall said. “No classified information appeared in the biography. Not a single syllable.”
U.S. prosecutor James Melendres noted that Petraeus had been entrusted with the government’s highest secrets.
“The defendant betrayed that trust,” he said in court.
(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington; Editing by Eric Walsh and Letitia Stein)
Koch Foundation 2013:
Charitable distributions: $7,542,598
Management/general: $487,213
Contrast:
the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Clinton foundation also spent excessively on: employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million)
Nobody on the left cares.
Charitable distributions: $7,542,598
Management/general: $487,213
Contrast:
the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Clinton foundation also spent excessively on: employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million)
Nobody on the left cares.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...on-put-on-watch-list-of-suspicious-charities/
The New York Post reports that Charity Navigator, which describes itself as “the nation’s largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities,” has added the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits.
Another accomplishment?
The New York Post reports that Charity Navigator, which describes itself as “the nation’s largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities,” has added the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits.
Another accomplishment?
[h=1]Goldman Paid Bill Clinton $200,000 For Speech Before Bank Lobbied Hillary Clinton[/h]
Goldman Sachs paid former President Bill Clinton $200,000 to deliver a speech in the spring of 2011, several months before the investment banking giant began lobbying the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, federal records reviewed by International Business Times show.
Goldman Sachs paid former President Bill Clinton $200,000 to deliver a speech in the spring of 2011, several months before the investment banking giant began lobbying the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, federal records reviewed by International Business Times show.
As Baltimore Burns, O'Malley Speaks Out, Hillary Tweets About Bumper Stickers
8:25 PM, APR 27, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts
Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland and possible Democratic presidential candidate, is speaking out on the violence in Baltimore. O'Malley's rival, Hillary Clinton, is not.
"I'm saddened that the City I love is in such pain this night. All of us share a profound feeling of grief for Freddie Gray & his family," O'Malley said on Twitter.
"We must come together as one City to transform this moment of loss & pain into a safer & more just future for all of Baltimore's people."
Meanwhile, Clinton has been silent. Her last tweet was offering a free bumper sticker to supporters.
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
Don't miss your chance to get a free Hillary 2016 bumper sticker! https://cards.twitter.com/cards/18ce53ysfi6/i8ax …
3:22 PM - 27 Apr 2015
8:25 PM, APR 27, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts
Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland and possible Democratic presidential candidate, is speaking out on the violence in Baltimore. O'Malley's rival, Hillary Clinton, is not.
"I'm saddened that the City I love is in such pain this night. All of us share a profound feeling of grief for Freddie Gray & his family," O'Malley said on Twitter.
"We must come together as one City to transform this moment of loss & pain into a safer & more just future for all of Baltimore's people."
Meanwhile, Clinton has been silent. Her last tweet was offering a free bumper sticker to supporters.
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
Don't miss your chance to get a free Hillary 2016 bumper sticker! https://cards.twitter.com/cards/18ce53ysfi6/i8ax …
3:22 PM - 27 Apr 2015
[h=2]Campaign Modifies Hillary Clinton’s Life Story for 2016 Campaign[/h]New campaign abandons ‘universal health care’ term used in 2008 bio
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
April 27, 2015 2:20 pm
The Hillary Clinton campaign wants to ensure that 2016 goes nothing like 2008, and part of that effort is tweaking her official bio to present a different Clinton to the public this time around.
Changes made to the “about” page on Clinton’s campaign website reveal an effort to modify her image and distance herself from terms such as universal health care, aWashington Free Beacon analysis shows.
One major modification made to her current campaign website is the notion Clinton chose not to join a big law firm due to her “commitment to public service and fighting for others—especially children and families—that she’s carried all her life.”
This commitment to children and families brought her to the Children’s Defense Fund, where she went door-to-door “gathering stories about the lack of schooling for children with disabilities.”
Below is the segment from the current bio:
Here is the list in 2016, which notes that Clinton has “never forgotten where she came from or who she’s been fighting for throughout her life.”
Also removed was that she was a “partner in a law firm” and was “twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.” The passage also mentioned her work on the issue of “equal pay” for women.
AP
BY: Brent Scher
April 27, 2015 2:20 pm
The Hillary Clinton campaign wants to ensure that 2016 goes nothing like 2008, and part of that effort is tweaking her official bio to present a different Clinton to the public this time around.
Changes made to the “about” page on Clinton’s campaign website reveal an effort to modify her image and distance herself from terms such as universal health care, aWashington Free Beacon analysis shows.
One major modification made to her current campaign website is the notion Clinton chose not to join a big law firm due to her “commitment to public service and fighting for others—especially children and families—that she’s carried all her life.”
This commitment to children and families brought her to the Children’s Defense Fund, where she went door-to-door “gathering stories about the lack of schooling for children with disabilities.”
Below is the segment from the current bio:
2016
In 2008, her decision to forgo a career at a big law firm was made because “she followed her heart and a man named Bill Clinton to Arkansas.”
2008
Clinton also added the terms “activist” and “volunteer” to the list of roles she has held in her life.Here is the list in 2016, which notes that Clinton has “never forgotten where she came from or who she’s been fighting for throughout her life.”
2016
These labels were absent from her bio in 2008.
2008
Also missing is any mention of Clinton’s “fight for universal health care” and “commitment to health care for every American” that existed in 2008.
2008
The current iteration of Clinton’s bio modifies the claim to say that Clinton “tenaciously led the fight to reform our health care system so that all our families have access to the care they need at affordable prices.”
2016
Added to Clinton’s new bio is that as First Lady in 1995, she led the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women and that her “groundbreaking speech” at the conference was “inspiring [to] women worldwide.”
2016
There were also multiple passages that appeared in 2008 but no longer in 2016. One removedpassage was about her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee helping the military.Also removed was that she was a “partner in a law firm” and was “twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.” The passage also mentioned her work on the issue of “equal pay” for women.
2008
A request for comment to the Clinton campaign on the reasoning behind the changes was not returned.Dem Super PAC Seeks Dirt on Kochs’ University Donations
Oppo research outfit American Bridge files an open records request for Koch communications with MSU
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
April 28, 2015 1:25 pm
A leading Democratic Super PAC is hoping to dig up dirt on a public university after it accepted grant money from a group backed by libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch, documents reveal.
American Bridge, a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC backed by some of the nation’s wealthiest Democrats, filed an open records request with Mississippi State University last week seeking correspondence between university officials and employees of the Charles Koch Institute.
The group filed the request a day after MSU announced that it would accept roughly $365,000 in grants from CKI to fund a new Institute for Market Studies.
According to a copy of the request obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, American Bridge is seeking all correspondence since Jan.1, 2014, between the CKI and 10 MSU employees, including its president and provost.
It is also looking for communications with MSU economics professor Claudia Williamson, who is helping to form the Institute and is expected to play a key role in its operations.
American Bridge routinely attack the Kochs, who have donated more than $167 million to dozens of colleges, high schools, and other educational institutions, according to Mother Jones.
After failing to win key races for Democrats in the 2014 midterms using a strategy that painted the Kochs as evil oligarchs, American Bridge decided to double down on that strategy heading into 2016. The group did not respond to a request for comment on its open records request.
The Kochs featured prominently in promotional materials handed out at a recent conference of the Democracy Alliance donor club in San Francisco. A coalition of the left’s deep-pocketed moneymen, the group’s conference included presentations by David Brock, a high-profile Clinton supporter and American Bridge’s founder.
The Super PAC’s dark money arm recently attacked a Koch-backed group for lobbying to reduce federal subsidies for Koch Industries and its subsidiaries.
Critics of the MSU project said the Kochs are looking to line their own pockets. “I haven’t been shown another example where someone’s political and economic interests were so aligned with the centers they’re funding,” a Greenpeace spokesman told the Associated Press.
CKI brushed off that criticism. “Those accusations are false,” John Hardin, its director of university relations, told the AP. “They’re unfair. We believe that academic freedom is an absolute core value.”
David Shaw, MSU’s vice president for research, also rejected that criticism in a statement.
“We strongly support academic freedom, and accept funds to support independent research activities from a wide variety of foundations with widely divergent backgrounds and focus of their efforts,” Shaw said.
Don't miss this:
The Kochs are not the only politically active billionaires to invest in research centers at major universities.
Billionaire Democratic donor and Democracy Alliance partner Tom Steyer and his wife Kat Taylorrecently helped Stanford University form the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy and the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance.
Steyer’s TomKat Charitable Trust has also donated more than $2 million to Harvard University, including $600,000 in contributions to the TomKat Innovation Fund at the university’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
American Bridge open records request
Oppo research outfit American Bridge files an open records request for Koch communications with MSU
Charles Koch / AP
BY: Lachlan Markay
April 28, 2015 1:25 pm
A leading Democratic Super PAC is hoping to dig up dirt on a public university after it accepted grant money from a group backed by libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch, documents reveal.
American Bridge, a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC backed by some of the nation’s wealthiest Democrats, filed an open records request with Mississippi State University last week seeking correspondence between university officials and employees of the Charles Koch Institute.
The group filed the request a day after MSU announced that it would accept roughly $365,000 in grants from CKI to fund a new Institute for Market Studies.
According to a copy of the request obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, American Bridge is seeking all correspondence since Jan.1, 2014, between the CKI and 10 MSU employees, including its president and provost.
It is also looking for communications with MSU economics professor Claudia Williamson, who is helping to form the Institute and is expected to play a key role in its operations.
American Bridge routinely attack the Kochs, who have donated more than $167 million to dozens of colleges, high schools, and other educational institutions, according to Mother Jones.
After failing to win key races for Democrats in the 2014 midterms using a strategy that painted the Kochs as evil oligarchs, American Bridge decided to double down on that strategy heading into 2016. The group did not respond to a request for comment on its open records request.
The Kochs featured prominently in promotional materials handed out at a recent conference of the Democracy Alliance donor club in San Francisco. A coalition of the left’s deep-pocketed moneymen, the group’s conference included presentations by David Brock, a high-profile Clinton supporter and American Bridge’s founder.
The Super PAC’s dark money arm recently attacked a Koch-backed group for lobbying to reduce federal subsidies for Koch Industries and its subsidiaries.
Critics of the MSU project said the Kochs are looking to line their own pockets. “I haven’t been shown another example where someone’s political and economic interests were so aligned with the centers they’re funding,” a Greenpeace spokesman told the Associated Press.
CKI brushed off that criticism. “Those accusations are false,” John Hardin, its director of university relations, told the AP. “They’re unfair. We believe that academic freedom is an absolute core value.”
David Shaw, MSU’s vice president for research, also rejected that criticism in a statement.
“We strongly support academic freedom, and accept funds to support independent research activities from a wide variety of foundations with widely divergent backgrounds and focus of their efforts,” Shaw said.
Don't miss this:
The Kochs are not the only politically active billionaires to invest in research centers at major universities.
Billionaire Democratic donor and Democracy Alliance partner Tom Steyer and his wife Kat Taylorrecently helped Stanford University form the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy and the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance.
Steyer’s TomKat Charitable Trust has also donated more than $2 million to Harvard University, including $600,000 in contributions to the TomKat Innovation Fund at the university’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
American Bridge open records request
[h=2]Clinton Foundation Donor Boeing Won’t Turn Over Hillary Emails[/h]
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
April 28, 2015 3:05 pm
Airline giant Boeing said this week that it will not release correspondence pertaining to the State Department’s work in securing a Russian contract for the company, a donor to the foundation of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Boeing recently rejected a shareholderresolution proposed by David Almasi, a Boeing shareholder and the executive director of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research, asking the company to disclose more information about its charitable giving.
At the company’s Monday shareholder meeting, Almasi asked chief executive James McNerney “to set the record straight that every communication between Boeing and the State Department was above board.”
“Will you release every email and communication that Boeing officials had relating to donations to the Clinton Foundation, and with the State Department?” Almasi asked.
McNerney said Boeing would do so “if there is some regulatory or legal proceeding that we’re asked to become part of.”
According to a NCPPR news release, the group was seeking “emails between Boeing and the U.S. State Department during the time State helped Boeing secure a Russian contract and Boeing made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation available for inspection.”
Boeing donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. It also lobbied the State Department while Clinton helmed the agency.
Clinton went to bat for Boeing early in her tenure at State. She pushed Russian officials to approve a multi-billion-dollar contract for Boeing planes, the Washington Post reported last year.
After it landed the contract, Boeing announced that it would donate $1 million to a pavilion at the World’s Fair, a project on which Clinton had labored at State, the Post reported.
Boeing 737 / Wikimedia Commons
BY: Lachlan Markay
April 28, 2015 3:05 pm
Airline giant Boeing said this week that it will not release correspondence pertaining to the State Department’s work in securing a Russian contract for the company, a donor to the foundation of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Boeing recently rejected a shareholderresolution proposed by David Almasi, a Boeing shareholder and the executive director of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research, asking the company to disclose more information about its charitable giving.
At the company’s Monday shareholder meeting, Almasi asked chief executive James McNerney “to set the record straight that every communication between Boeing and the State Department was above board.”
“Will you release every email and communication that Boeing officials had relating to donations to the Clinton Foundation, and with the State Department?” Almasi asked.
McNerney said Boeing would do so “if there is some regulatory or legal proceeding that we’re asked to become part of.”
According to a NCPPR news release, the group was seeking “emails between Boeing and the U.S. State Department during the time State helped Boeing secure a Russian contract and Boeing made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation available for inspection.”
Boeing donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. It also lobbied the State Department while Clinton helmed the agency.
Clinton went to bat for Boeing early in her tenure at State. She pushed Russian officials to approve a multi-billion-dollar contract for Boeing planes, the Washington Post reported last year.
After it landed the contract, Boeing announced that it would donate $1 million to a pavilion at the World’s Fair, a project on which Clinton had labored at State, the Post reported.
[T]o secure the donation, the State Department had set aside ethics guidelines that first prohibited solicitations of Boeing and then later permitted only a $1 million gift from the company. Boeing had been included on a list of firms to be avoided because of its frequent reliance on the government for help negotiating overseas business and concern that a donation could be seen as an attempt to curry favor with U.S. officials.
The November 2009 episode was an indicator of a mutually beneficial relationship between one of the world’s major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image.
The November 2009 episode was an indicator of a mutually beneficial relationship between one of the world’s major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image.
Look out Hillary! You’re about to get to get some competition.
Although he isn’t much of a threat.
VPR News has learned from several sources that Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders will announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-announce-presidential-run
Although he isn’t much of a threat.
VPR News has learned from several sources that Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders will announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-announce-presidential-run
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive! Or connecting the dots. You decide.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/f...mpaign-chair-lobbies-for-russias-uranium-one/
Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner, has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.
Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.
Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a July 20, 2012 filing.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/f...mpaign-chair-lobbies-for-russias-uranium-one/
Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner, has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.
Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.
Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a July 20, 2012 filing.
Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images
DisclosuresClinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations
Apr 29, 2015 4:21 AM CDT
The co-founder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate is revealing new details about the charity's donors in an effort to counter allegations in the New York Times and the new book “Clinton Cash.”
Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic for the Democratic frontrunner, given how closely these two worlds overlap. Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.
Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.
“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.
“We’re not trying to hide anything.”
Frank Giustra
The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”
It hasn’t.
Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.
On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”
Also on Bloomberg Politics: The Definitive Hillary Clinton Scouting Report, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann
Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."
Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."
CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth."
While Giustra says he can’t reveal any names, he is willing to disclose that CGEP money comes from “mostly Canadian donors.” The charity is registered in Canada, he says, not to hide the identity of its donors but to enable them to receive Canadian tax breaks that can reimburse them for nearly half of what they give.
However, not all CGEP’s big donors are Canadian. The Canada Revenue Agency—Canada’s IRS—requires charities to reveal whether they receive donations of more than $10,000 (Canadian) from people who are not Canadians, employed in the country, or carrying on business there. In both 2009 and 2010, CGEP filings show that it reported receiving such donations to Canadian authorities.
With millions of dollars and 1,100 donors shrouded in mystery, CGEP has caught the attention of journalist and authors, including Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, details Giustra’s financial relationship with Bill Clinton and posits nefarious intentions. The fact that the Clinton Foundation promised something that Giustra feels he can’t supply—the identity of his donors—has put him in an even worse spot.
Giustra is fed up, and he’s vowing to do something to ease his disclosure constraints and clear his name. “There is a way around it—but you need each individual donor’s written permission to allow us to disclose their names,” he says. “We’re going through a process now where we’re trying to get the permission.” He adds, “We’re not going to go to 1,100 people. But we’re certainly going to go to the big ones—a couple hundred grand and up—and just see what they say. Now, they can say no. But we’re going to try.”
DisclosuresClinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations
Apr 29, 2015 4:21 AM CDT
The co-founder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate is revealing new details about the charity's donors in an effort to counter allegations in the New York Times and the new book “Clinton Cash.”
Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic for the Democratic frontrunner, given how closely these two worlds overlap. Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.
Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.
“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.
“We’re not trying to hide anything.”
Frank Giustra
The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”
It hasn’t.
Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.
On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”
Also on Bloomberg Politics: The Definitive Hillary Clinton Scouting Report, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann
Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."
Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."
CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth."
While Giustra says he can’t reveal any names, he is willing to disclose that CGEP money comes from “mostly Canadian donors.” The charity is registered in Canada, he says, not to hide the identity of its donors but to enable them to receive Canadian tax breaks that can reimburse them for nearly half of what they give.
However, not all CGEP’s big donors are Canadian. The Canada Revenue Agency—Canada’s IRS—requires charities to reveal whether they receive donations of more than $10,000 (Canadian) from people who are not Canadians, employed in the country, or carrying on business there. In both 2009 and 2010, CGEP filings show that it reported receiving such donations to Canadian authorities.
With millions of dollars and 1,100 donors shrouded in mystery, CGEP has caught the attention of journalist and authors, including Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, details Giustra’s financial relationship with Bill Clinton and posits nefarious intentions. The fact that the Clinton Foundation promised something that Giustra feels he can’t supply—the identity of his donors—has put him in an even worse spot.
Giustra is fed up, and he’s vowing to do something to ease his disclosure constraints and clear his name. “There is a way around it—but you need each individual donor’s written permission to allow us to disclose their names,” he says. “We’re going through a process now where we’re trying to get the permission.” He adds, “We’re not going to go to 1,100 people. But we’re certainly going to go to the big ones—a couple hundred grand and up—and just see what they say. Now, they can say no. But we’re going to try.”
- Disclosures
[*]Privacy
[*]Law
[*]Canada
[*]Clinton Foundation - Tax Policy
