Wonder if Mr Dot Connector is interested in the corrections and retractions of the stories he posts?
The "Missing Hillary Emails" Story The Daily Beast Walked Back
[COLOR=#999999 !important]Research 7 hours and 18 minutes ago ››› MATT GERTZ
120
[/COLOR]
The Daily Beast has walked back its initial attempt to scandalize a "conspicuous two-month gap" in emails released by the State Department from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, suggesting the gap indicates a tranche of "missing Hillary emails" about the Benghazi attacks. The site has updated its article to note that Clinton and her aides could have used other methods to communicate during that period, completely undermining the story's original implication.
Daily Beast Revises Story To Explain "The Missing Hillary Emails No One Can Explain"
Original Daily Beast: "Conspicuous Two-Month Gap" In Clinton Benghazi Emails. On July 28, The Daily Beast published an article with the headline "The Missing Hillary Emails No One Can Explain" and the subheadline, "There is a two-month gap in Hillary Clinton's emails that coincides with violence in Libya and the employment status of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin." The first two paragraphs of the story stated:
Clinton Aide: She Rarely Used Email -- It Wasn't A Good Way To Get Her Attention. As the Daily Beast update makes clear, the reason there are no emails about "escalating dangers in Libya during those crucial months" could be because email wasn't the method used to discuss such information. Indeed, Bloomberg Politics reported on March 3 that a former State Department official said that he generally communicated with Clinton in person or by phone and that email "wasn't the best way to get Clinton's attention":
Original Daily Beast: Two-Month Email Gap "Also Coincides" With Clinton Aide Huma Abedin Getting "Special Exemption." In its original version, The Daily Beast reported:
Update Notes Additions To Story Related To Clinton's Emails And Abedin. The update reads:
The New York Times Issued Multiple Corrections To False Report That Inspectors General Wanted Criminal Investigation Of Hillary Clinton. On July 23 the Times published a report headlined "Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton's Use Of Email" which reported that two inspectors general were seeking a criminal investigation into Clinton's use of personal email while at the State Department, according to anonymous "senior government officials." The paper subsequently issued two corrections, noting that the requested probe was not criminal in nature and it did not target Clinton. [Media Matters, 7/24/15; 7/25/15]
NY Times Reversed Course After Admitting Insinuation That Clinton Violated Federal Requirements Was "Not Without Fault." In a March 2 report, the Times accused Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with the use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department. Following criticism, the Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan admitted that this initial report "was not without fault." In subsequent reporting on Clinton's email use, the paper acknowledged that guidelines on the email use were vague while Clinton was at the State Department, that the requirement for agencies to preserve emails rapidly was not put in place until after Clinton left the State Department, and that there has never been any legal prohibition against the practice of using personal email. [Media Matters, 3/13/15]
Associated Press Changed Report That Baselessly Hyped A "Mysterious Identity" Linked To Clinton's Email On "Homebrew" Server. On March 3 the Associated Press initially alleged that a "homebrew" email server -- used to transmit Clinton's emails, and registered to her home in New York -- was traced "to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham," noting that the name Eric Hoteham doesn't appear in public records. The subsequently acknowledged that "Hoteham" was an aide to Clinton and considered "one of the family's information technology experts" and that his name was actually spelled Hothem. [Media Matters, 3/10/15]
Politico Clarified Initial Allegation That Clinton Violated "Clear Cut" Email Policy. On March 5, Politicoclaimed that Clinton's use of a private email account was at odds with a "clear cut" 2005 policy used to "warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work." But an updated version of the Politico article noted, "After this story was first published, a State Department official acknowledged the 2005 policy but emphasized that it is limited to records containing such sensitive information." [Media Matters,3/10/15]
The Washington Post Significantly Altered Report To Walk Back Insinuation That State Department Was Investigating Whether Clinton Violated Security Policies. A March 6 Washington Post report suggested that the purpose behind a State Department review was to determine whether Clinton's use of a private email account "violated policies designed to protect sensitive information." But a later version of the article significantly changed the headline and updated language to clarify that the purpose of the State Department's review of Clinton's email was "to determine whether they can be released to the public." As the Post's Erik Wemple pointed out, while the initial headline "asserts a purpose behind the review," the second headline "suggests that any such finding would be incidental." [Media Matters, 3/10/15]
CNN Admitted It Is "Common Practice" To Print Emails For Review After Initial Report Suggested Clinton Printed Emails To Obstruct Review Process. On March 11, CNN published an article noting that Clinton's emails have been submitted for review for public release as printed-out hard copies, rather than electronic documents. The article stated, "By doing it that way, Clinton has made it harder and more expensive for the federal government to quickly review her emails and decide what's OK for the public and what's not." But the next day, CNN had updated its report after the State Department told CNNMoney that it is standard practice to print emails for review. The revised article noted, "[A] State Department official said that printing emails is common practice because they would have to print Clinton's emails in their normal review process." [Media Matters, 3/12/15]
Politico Corrected Inaccurate Claim That Clinton Pushed Emails With Media Matters Links From Sidney Blumenthal To The White House. Politico published inaccurate information about emails between Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal described to the outlet by an anonymous source who apparently distorted the emails' contents. The June 18 article initially reported that Clinton told Blumenthal she was "pushing" his email containing Media Matters' fact checks of Benghazi smears to the White House. But as Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) pointed out, Clinton's email reading "Thanks, I'm pushing to WH" came not in response to Blumenthal's email with the Media Matters links, as Politico indicated, but rather in response to a "completely different" Blumenthal email from nine days earlier. Politico updated its story with a correction the day after publication. [Media Matters, 7/6/15]
The "Missing Hillary Emails" Story The Daily Beast Walked Back
[COLOR=#999999 !important]Research 7 hours and 18 minutes ago ››› MATT GERTZ
120
[/COLOR]
The Daily Beast has walked back its initial attempt to scandalize a "conspicuous two-month gap" in emails released by the State Department from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, suggesting the gap indicates a tranche of "missing Hillary emails" about the Benghazi attacks. The site has updated its article to note that Clinton and her aides could have used other methods to communicate during that period, completely undermining the story's original implication.
Daily Beast Revises Story To Explain "The Missing Hillary Emails No One Can Explain"
Original Daily Beast: "Conspicuous Two-Month Gap" In Clinton Benghazi Emails. On July 28, The Daily Beast published an article with the headline "The Missing Hillary Emails No One Can Explain" and the subheadline, "There is a two-month gap in Hillary Clinton's emails that coincides with violence in Libya and the employment status of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin." The first two paragraphs of the story stated:
Among the approximately 2,000 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released from her private account, there is a conspicuous two-month gap. There are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.
A State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that's true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate. [The Daily Beast original version, 7/28/15]
Revised Daily Beast: "Of Course" Email Isn't "Preferred" Way State Department Makes Such Communications. The Daily Beast has since updated their story to note that "email isn't the only or even the preferred way State Department officials communicate about sensitive issues." They also changed the subheadline to: "Two very different groups are trying to track down months' worth of Clinton emails. One wants to know about her reaction to Libyan violence; the other, about her aide Huma Abedin." The first two paragraphs of the story now read (emphasis added):A State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that's true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate. [The Daily Beast original version, 7/28/15]
Among the hundreds of emails released by the State Department from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private account, there is a conspicuous two-month gap. So far, there are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.
A State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that's true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya during those two crucial months. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate. (Of course, email isn't the only or even the preferred way State Department officials communicate about sensitive issues--especially if one of those officials is using a private server ill equipped to handle classified information.) [The Daily Beast, 7/28/15]
Clinton Staffers Have Explained That Email Wasn't Clinton's Preferred Or Exclusive Method Of CommunicationA State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that's true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya during those two crucial months. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate. (Of course, email isn't the only or even the preferred way State Department officials communicate about sensitive issues--especially if one of those officials is using a private server ill equipped to handle classified information.) [The Daily Beast, 7/28/15]
Clinton Aide: She Rarely Used Email -- It Wasn't A Good Way To Get Her Attention. As the Daily Beast update makes clear, the reason there are no emails about "escalating dangers in Libya during those crucial months" could be because email wasn't the method used to discuss such information. Indeed, Bloomberg Politics reported on March 3 that a former State Department official said that he generally communicated with Clinton in person or by phone and that email "wasn't the best way to get Clinton's attention":
One former State Department official who worked for Clinton told Bloomberg Politics he did not find the practice unusual, given how little Clinton actually used e-mail. Most of the time, the former official said, his interactions with Clinton and across the department were either face to face or over phone.
When he did get an e-mail from Clinton, the former official said, it was generally a directive and his response usually came on paper or in person the next time they saw each other. When Clinton was traveling, the former official said, he generally conveyed messages to Clinton through a core group of four senior aides-Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, and Philippe Reines.
E-mail, the former official added, also wasn't the best way to get Clinton's attention, since she couldn't bring her BlackBerry into diplomatic meetings at home or abroad, or into the White House situation room, because of security reasons. Even when sitting at a computer, an official e-mail address would have been a clunky way for Clinton to communicate, since many aides would have had to been copied and responses would have piled up quickly, filling her inbox. [Bloomberg Politics, 3/3/15]
Clinton Campaign: She Consumed Classified Information Through "Separate, Closed" State System And Via "Hard Copy." Another possible explanation for the gap is that the communications detailing the Libyan situation were classified. According to the Clinton campaign, such information would be consumed through a separate State Department system or in hard copy:When he did get an e-mail from Clinton, the former official said, it was generally a directive and his response usually came on paper or in person the next time they saw each other. When Clinton was traveling, the former official said, he generally conveyed messages to Clinton through a core group of four senior aides-Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, and Philippe Reines.
E-mail, the former official added, also wasn't the best way to get Clinton's attention, since she couldn't bring her BlackBerry into diplomatic meetings at home or abroad, or into the White House situation room, because of security reasons. Even when sitting at a computer, an official e-mail address would have been a clunky way for Clinton to communicate, since many aides would have had to been copied and responses would have piled up quickly, filling her inbox. [Bloomberg Politics, 3/3/15]
Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. A separate, closed system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.
[...]
The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types. [HillaryClinton.com, accessed 7/29/15]
Daily Beast Also Walked Back Suggestion That Emails About Clinton Aide's Exemption Are Missing[...]
The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types. [HillaryClinton.com, accessed 7/29/15]
Original Daily Beast: Two-Month Email Gap "Also Coincides" With Clinton Aide Huma Abedin Getting "Special Exemption." In its original version, The Daily Beast reported:
That two-month period also coincides with a senior Clinton aide obtaining a special exemption that allowed her to work both as a staff member to the secretary and in a private capacity for Clinton and her husband's foundation. The Associated Press has sued to obtain emails from Clinton's account about the aide, Huma Abedin. [The Daily Beast original version,7/28/15] (Included link to screenshot of original again)
Revised Daily Beast: Abedin Emails Wouldn't Be Included In Released Emails To Benghazi Committee, "Which Asked Only For Libya-Related Material." The story has since been updated to note that there would be no reason to expect emails about Abedin to be included in the "two-month gap" because the emails released to the Benghazi committee deal only with "Libya-related material" (emphasis added):
That two-month period also coincides with a senior Clinton aide obtaining a special exemption that allowed her to work both as a staff member to the secretary and in a private capacity for Clinton and her husband's foundation. The Associated Press has sued to obtain emails from Clinton's account about the aide, Huma Abedin. So far, the State Department has rebuffed those efforts. Nor, understandably, did Foggy Bottom turn over any emails about Abedin's employment status to the Benghazi Committee, which asked only for Libya-related material. [The Daily Beast, 7/28/15]
Daily Beast Issues "Update" Detailing Story Modifications
Update Notes Additions To Story Related To Clinton's Emails And Abedin. The update reads:
UPDATE: This story has been modified to make clear that the State Department -- not the former Secretary of State herself -- is releasing Clinton's emails. The number of emails has been changed from "approximately 2,000" to "hundreds," to more accurately reflect how many messages from 2012 have been released. The story now also notes that email is hardly the only way that State Department officials communicate. And the piece has been clarified to underscore that emails about Huma Abedin's employment status would not necessarily be in the tranche of messages released to the Benghazi Committee. [The Daily Beast, 7/28/15]
Media Outlets Have Repeatedly Walked Back Flawed Reports Scandalizing Clinton's Email Use
The New York Times Issued Multiple Corrections To False Report That Inspectors General Wanted Criminal Investigation Of Hillary Clinton. On July 23 the Times published a report headlined "Criminal Inquiry Sought In Clinton's Use Of Email" which reported that two inspectors general were seeking a criminal investigation into Clinton's use of personal email while at the State Department, according to anonymous "senior government officials." The paper subsequently issued two corrections, noting that the requested probe was not criminal in nature and it did not target Clinton. [Media Matters, 7/24/15; 7/25/15]
NY Times Reversed Course After Admitting Insinuation That Clinton Violated Federal Requirements Was "Not Without Fault." In a March 2 report, the Times accused Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with the use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department. Following criticism, the Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan admitted that this initial report "was not without fault." In subsequent reporting on Clinton's email use, the paper acknowledged that guidelines on the email use were vague while Clinton was at the State Department, that the requirement for agencies to preserve emails rapidly was not put in place until after Clinton left the State Department, and that there has never been any legal prohibition against the practice of using personal email. [Media Matters, 3/13/15]
Associated Press Changed Report That Baselessly Hyped A "Mysterious Identity" Linked To Clinton's Email On "Homebrew" Server. On March 3 the Associated Press initially alleged that a "homebrew" email server -- used to transmit Clinton's emails, and registered to her home in New York -- was traced "to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham," noting that the name Eric Hoteham doesn't appear in public records. The subsequently acknowledged that "Hoteham" was an aide to Clinton and considered "one of the family's information technology experts" and that his name was actually spelled Hothem. [Media Matters, 3/10/15]
Politico Clarified Initial Allegation That Clinton Violated "Clear Cut" Email Policy. On March 5, Politicoclaimed that Clinton's use of a private email account was at odds with a "clear cut" 2005 policy used to "warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work." But an updated version of the Politico article noted, "After this story was first published, a State Department official acknowledged the 2005 policy but emphasized that it is limited to records containing such sensitive information." [Media Matters,3/10/15]
The Washington Post Significantly Altered Report To Walk Back Insinuation That State Department Was Investigating Whether Clinton Violated Security Policies. A March 6 Washington Post report suggested that the purpose behind a State Department review was to determine whether Clinton's use of a private email account "violated policies designed to protect sensitive information." But a later version of the article significantly changed the headline and updated language to clarify that the purpose of the State Department's review of Clinton's email was "to determine whether they can be released to the public." As the Post's Erik Wemple pointed out, while the initial headline "asserts a purpose behind the review," the second headline "suggests that any such finding would be incidental." [Media Matters, 3/10/15]
CNN Admitted It Is "Common Practice" To Print Emails For Review After Initial Report Suggested Clinton Printed Emails To Obstruct Review Process. On March 11, CNN published an article noting that Clinton's emails have been submitted for review for public release as printed-out hard copies, rather than electronic documents. The article stated, "By doing it that way, Clinton has made it harder and more expensive for the federal government to quickly review her emails and decide what's OK for the public and what's not." But the next day, CNN had updated its report after the State Department told CNNMoney that it is standard practice to print emails for review. The revised article noted, "[A] State Department official said that printing emails is common practice because they would have to print Clinton's emails in their normal review process." [Media Matters, 3/12/15]
Politico Corrected Inaccurate Claim That Clinton Pushed Emails With Media Matters Links From Sidney Blumenthal To The White House. Politico published inaccurate information about emails between Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal described to the outlet by an anonymous source who apparently distorted the emails' contents. The June 18 article initially reported that Clinton told Blumenthal she was "pushing" his email containing Media Matters' fact checks of Benghazi smears to the White House. But as Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) pointed out, Clinton's email reading "Thanks, I'm pushing to WH" came not in response to Blumenthal's email with the Media Matters links, as Politico indicated, but rather in response to a "completely different" Blumenthal email from nine days earlier. Politico updated its story with a correction the day after publication. [Media Matters, 7/6/15]
Lol. Good find Guesser. He's been posting bogus stories for years....many of them get destroyed in fact check. Same as Zits hypocrisy thread. These guys post bullshit story after bullshit story and then never comment after they get exposed as lies.
Probably time to connect the dots on Russ. Starts at Breitbart, passes thru daily caller and ends up here. Connected!!!!
Probably time to connect the dots on Russ. Starts at Breitbart, passes thru daily caller and ends up here. Connected!!!!
Hillary Clinton personally intervened on behalf of a Swiss bank facing charges, bank poured $ into Clinton Foundation
Guess what happened next?
Under the terms of the deal, which was announced by Clinton and Calmy-Rey July 31, UBS would turn over information about 4,450 account-holders, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.
The deal was criticized by members of Clinton's own party in Congress. Then-Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. called the agreement "disappointing."
Guess what happened next?
Under the terms of the deal, which was announced by Clinton and Calmy-Rey July 31, UBS would turn over information about 4,450 account-holders, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.
The deal was criticized by members of Clinton's own party in Congress. Then-Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. called the agreement "disappointing."
You posted article from the Daily Beast, which is about the most credible site you've posted from.hno:
I post from three sources and that does not include the Daily Beast. If they have an article in one of those 3 sources and it concerns Hillary I would post it. I have said many times you can judge each and every article on it's own merits and agree or disagree. The article you posted did not offer one correction for any of the many lies Hillary has told. Therefore your post was pretty much pointless even though you thought you were making a point. What is relevant is anything to do with Hillary that connects dots. There are thousands of dots out there. However as I already said nobody can defend the Clinton's actions over the years and they are too numerous to list. The emails alone define her. You say you will not vote for her but you continue to indirectly defend her. The thing is everyone in here can see right through you and what you do. You named yourself Guesser, that basically tells it all. Again, I never go to the Daily Beast as a direct source. You don't get it and you never will.
I don't defend her, I ridicule you and your "sources", and your lack of truthfulness and accuracy. I was making a great point, how the media will often sensationalize a story with a blaring headline, and then the correction won't be noticed. You post the blaring headline, but not the correction.
You can be accurately described as "opposite guy" as everything you say has an inverse correlation to reality.
Hillary Clinton reportedly went to great lengths to keep a $600 haircut private and away from prying eyes
What's the big deal!???
LMFAO
[h=2]Hillary Clinton’s Terrible Answer to the ‘Greatest Weakness’ Question Hasn’t Changed Since 2008[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
July 30, 2015 4:53 pm
SHARE
TWEET
Failed candidate Hillary Clinton. (AP)
Hillary Clinton “greatest weakness,” she said in a recent interview with the online newsletter The Skimm, is that there are too many stupid people who don’t understand why Hillary Clinton should be president:
It was basically identical as the answer she gave to the same question during a Democratic primary debate in January 2008:
I get impatient. I get, you know, really frustrated when people don’t seem to understand that we can do so much more to help each other, and sometimes I come across that way. I admit that. I get very concerned about, you know, pushing further and faster than perhaps people are ready to go.
She tries too hard, pushes to far, and too fast, for you simpletons to handle. You know, like how she was an early supporter (since April 2015) of a Constitutional right to gay marriage, for example.
Hillary’s answer to the “greatest strength” question was also very similar in 2008, just slightly updated with new buzz words and talking points—for example, by replacing “children” with “women.” Here’s what she said in the recent interview:
Here’s what she said in 2008:
Well, I am passionately committed to this country and what it stands for. I’m a product of the changes that have already occurred, and I want to be an instrument for making those changes alive and real in the lives of Americans, particularly children. That’s what I’ve done for 35 years. It is really my life’s work. It is something that comes out of my own experience, both in my family and in my church; that, you know, I’ve been blessed. And I think to whom much is given, much is expected.
Hillary Clinton has a history of recycling old talking points.
- See more at: http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-...asnt-changed-since-2008/#sthash.cr6UsVnu.dpuf
[h=2]Swiss Bank Poured Money into Clinton Foundation After Hillary Clinton Helped It Win a Favorable IRS Settlement[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
July 30, 2015 3:56 pm
SHARE
TWEET
AP
The Wall Street Journal reports on yet another shady connection between Hillary Clinton, a major foreign corporation, and the Clinton Foundation. Here is the gist:
A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.
If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.
Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.
From that point on, UBS’s engagement with the Clinton family’s charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.
UBS also paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million to take part in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS executives around the country, which, according to the Journal, makes UBS “his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.
Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.
From that point on, UBS’s engagement with the Clinton family’s charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.
The paper dutifully notes that “there is no evidence of any link” between Hillary’s involvement in the tax case and the bank’s donations to the Clinton Foundation. No smoking gun, and whatnot. In a press conference Thursday, Hillary Clinton dismissed the implications of the story as “categorically false,” saying: “This is just the kind of unfortunate claim or charge that you see in campaigns.
But in order to believe there is anything other than a direct link between Hillary’s efforts and the bank’s donations, one must harbor a view of both politicians and Wall Street that is almost unhealthily idealistic.This is especially true for Hillary’s liberal supporters, who will shrug this off (no smoking gun!) despite their repeated insistence that Wall Street banks are almost always up to no good and have essentially bought off the (Republican) political class. Mitt Romney caught a lot of grief for at one point having a Swiss bank account. Hillary will catch no such grief for personally helping a Swiss bank (and its super-rich American accountholders) avoid scrutiny from the IRS.
It’s also the sort of scandal that would, on its own, make any other candidate look bad. But for someone like Hillary, it is merely another drop in the massive bucket of shady dealings, the sheer volume of which, ironically, somehow dilutes the political impact, perhaps because the sketchiness is already baked into her candidacy. It won’t help her polls numbers when it comes to honest and trustworthiness among voters, but in the end that might not even matter. Nothing matters.
[h=2]Planned Parenthood Received Millions of Dollars After Lobbying Clinton’s State Department[/h]Planned Parenthood and international affiliates received more than $100 million from USAID
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Bill McMorris
July 30, 2015 1:30 pm
Planned Parenthood lobbied the Department of State many times during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there and received tens of millions of dollars from foreign policy agencies over the past few years, according to a new report.
As secretary of state, Clinton attacked the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding of abortion overseas. Her husband revoked the policy during his administration and President Obama lifted the ban upon taking office in 2009. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is tied to the State Department, steered more than $100 million in funding to Planned Parenthood, its international affiliates, and the pro-abortion Population Council between 2010 and 2012, according to the Government Accountability Office—about 20 percent of the nearly $500 million pro-abortion organizations received from taxpayers during that time frame.
The taxpayer dollars that Planned Parenthood received dwarfed the $3.4 million that Planned Parenthood spent on lobbying during President Obama’s first term, according to a report from Women Speak Out PAC, a partner of the Susan B. Anthony List, and American Rising. Government records document more than 30 instances of Planned Parenthood lobbying federal agencies, including the State Department while Clinton was serving there.
Congress is now considering bills to deny taxpayer funds to the nation’s largest abortion provider after undercover video surfaced from the non-profit Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. The group released a fourth video Thursday showing executives at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains carving up aborted babies while saying “it’s a baby” and “another boy.” The executive identified as Savita Ginde also tells the undercover videographers, who posed as prospective organ buyers, how Planned Parenthood justifies the sale of those organs.
“In public I think it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein than, I’d say, a business venture,” she said. Planned Parenthood has responded to the scandal of the videos by claiming the fetal body parts are used for research on numerous occasions.
Clinton is the top recipient of campaign donations from workers at the nation’s largest abortion provider, including a $2,700 donation from the CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Vicki Cowart. The nearly $10,000 she received from Planned Parenthood employees and executives is about 20 times more than the rest of the presidential field combined.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.
Pro-life activists, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of SBA List, have criticized Clinton’s support for abortion and Planned Parenthood throughout her political career.
“For more than two decades, her cozy relationship with Planned Parenthood was a source of cash and powerful political support. In light of yet another video brutally detailing the reality of abortion and harvesting of baby organs, it is a massive liability,” she said.
The Clinton campaign has drawn heavily from pro-abortion professionals. One of its top officials in Iowa, the nation’s first primary state, is Lily Adams, daughter of Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards. Jane Emerson, the women’s outreach director of Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign, previously served as CEO of the abortion provider’s South Carolina operations.
Planned Parenthood has also partnered with Clinton’s controversial family foundation, helping with six projects under the Clinton Global Initiative umbrella. The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.
Clinton, a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award, initially defended the billion dollar organization when the Center for Medical Progress released several hours of undercover video showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. Those videos captured numerous officials and medical personnel discussing the various techniques that the abortionist employees to recover intact body parts, which would violate federal law. Three congressional committees are now investigating Planned Parenthood over these violations.
Clinton has since backed away from outright support of the organization. After a third video was released Tuesday showing a former organ retrieval technician discuss how clinics financially benefit from the practice, Clinton told the New Hampshire Union Leader that she found the imagery “disturbing.”
“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,” she said. “This raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country … If there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one [organization].”
Dannenfelser said that Clinton’s tepid support for the investigation was smart politics as voters react to the video scandal.
“Hillary Clinton, like many Democrats have painted themselves into a corner by supporting abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayer dollars. The more Americans learn the truth about this extreme position, the more they will reject it,” she said.
SHARE
TWEET
Hillary Clinton / AP
BY: Bill McMorris
July 30, 2015 1:30 pm
Planned Parenthood lobbied the Department of State many times during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there and received tens of millions of dollars from foreign policy agencies over the past few years, according to a new report.
As secretary of state, Clinton attacked the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding of abortion overseas. Her husband revoked the policy during his administration and President Obama lifted the ban upon taking office in 2009. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is tied to the State Department, steered more than $100 million in funding to Planned Parenthood, its international affiliates, and the pro-abortion Population Council between 2010 and 2012, according to the Government Accountability Office—about 20 percent of the nearly $500 million pro-abortion organizations received from taxpayers during that time frame.
The taxpayer dollars that Planned Parenthood received dwarfed the $3.4 million that Planned Parenthood spent on lobbying during President Obama’s first term, according to a report from Women Speak Out PAC, a partner of the Susan B. Anthony List, and American Rising. Government records document more than 30 instances of Planned Parenthood lobbying federal agencies, including the State Department while Clinton was serving there.
Congress is now considering bills to deny taxpayer funds to the nation’s largest abortion provider after undercover video surfaced from the non-profit Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. The group released a fourth video Thursday showing executives at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains carving up aborted babies while saying “it’s a baby” and “another boy.” The executive identified as Savita Ginde also tells the undercover videographers, who posed as prospective organ buyers, how Planned Parenthood justifies the sale of those organs.
“In public I think it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein than, I’d say, a business venture,” she said. Planned Parenthood has responded to the scandal of the videos by claiming the fetal body parts are used for research on numerous occasions.
Clinton is the top recipient of campaign donations from workers at the nation’s largest abortion provider, including a $2,700 donation from the CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Vicki Cowart. The nearly $10,000 she received from Planned Parenthood employees and executives is about 20 times more than the rest of the presidential field combined.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.
Pro-life activists, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of SBA List, have criticized Clinton’s support for abortion and Planned Parenthood throughout her political career.
“For more than two decades, her cozy relationship with Planned Parenthood was a source of cash and powerful political support. In light of yet another video brutally detailing the reality of abortion and harvesting of baby organs, it is a massive liability,” she said.
The Clinton campaign has drawn heavily from pro-abortion professionals. One of its top officials in Iowa, the nation’s first primary state, is Lily Adams, daughter of Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards. Jane Emerson, the women’s outreach director of Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign, previously served as CEO of the abortion provider’s South Carolina operations.
Planned Parenthood has also partnered with Clinton’s controversial family foundation, helping with six projects under the Clinton Global Initiative umbrella. The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.
Clinton, a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award, initially defended the billion dollar organization when the Center for Medical Progress released several hours of undercover video showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. Those videos captured numerous officials and medical personnel discussing the various techniques that the abortionist employees to recover intact body parts, which would violate federal law. Three congressional committees are now investigating Planned Parenthood over these violations.
Clinton has since backed away from outright support of the organization. After a third video was released Tuesday showing a former organ retrieval technician discuss how clinics financially benefit from the practice, Clinton told the New Hampshire Union Leader that she found the imagery “disturbing.”
“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,” she said. “This raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country … If there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one [organization].”
Dannenfelser said that Clinton’s tepid support for the investigation was smart politics as voters react to the video scandal.
“Hillary Clinton, like many Democrats have painted themselves into a corner by supporting abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayer dollars. The more Americans learn the truth about this extreme position, the more they will reject it,” she said.
[h=2]Hillary Clinton Classified Emails Contained Information From Five Intelligence Agencies[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Morgan Chalfant
July 30, 2015 2:19 pm
The five classified emails contained on Hillary Clinton’s private email system contained information from five separate U.S. intelligence agencies.
McClatchy reported that the emails, determined to have contained “secret” information last week by the inspector general of the intelligence agency, held information from the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the CIA.
One of the emails also contained information regarding the 2012 Benghazi attacks and was improperly made public by the State Department in the first batch of 296 Clinton emails the government agency released in May.
The email in regard to Benghazi contained information from the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. The four remaining emails held information from the other two intelligence agencies.
The five Clinton emails were harvested from a sample of 40 reviewed by Inspector General I. Charles McCullough. Though the former secretary of state handed over 30,000 emails to the State Department that she herself deemed work-related, the government agency has not allowed McCullough access to the entire batch of emails.
Last week, McCullough wrote a letter to Congress alerting lawmakers to the classified nature of the emails that were incorrectly not marked as “secret” on Clinton’s private email system.
Throughout her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has denied sending or receiving classified information on her personal email account while at the State Department.
The Democratic presidential candidate’s favorable and honesty ratings have endured drops amid the email controversy. Currently, significant majorities of voters rate Clinton as not trustworthy and unconcerned about their needs and problems.
The State Department is scheduled to release another batch of Clinton emails Friday.
TWEET
Hillary Clinton / AP
BY: Morgan Chalfant
July 30, 2015 2:19 pm
The five classified emails contained on Hillary Clinton’s private email system contained information from five separate U.S. intelligence agencies.
McClatchy reported that the emails, determined to have contained “secret” information last week by the inspector general of the intelligence agency, held information from the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the CIA.
One of the emails also contained information regarding the 2012 Benghazi attacks and was improperly made public by the State Department in the first batch of 296 Clinton emails the government agency released in May.
The email in regard to Benghazi contained information from the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. The four remaining emails held information from the other two intelligence agencies.
The five Clinton emails were harvested from a sample of 40 reviewed by Inspector General I. Charles McCullough. Though the former secretary of state handed over 30,000 emails to the State Department that she herself deemed work-related, the government agency has not allowed McCullough access to the entire batch of emails.
Last week, McCullough wrote a letter to Congress alerting lawmakers to the classified nature of the emails that were incorrectly not marked as “secret” on Clinton’s private email system.
Throughout her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has denied sending or receiving classified information on her personal email account while at the State Department.
The Democratic presidential candidate’s favorable and honesty ratings have endured drops amid the email controversy. Currently, significant majorities of voters rate Clinton as not trustworthy and unconcerned about their needs and problems.
The State Department is scheduled to release another batch of Clinton emails Friday.
