The problem is there's no Obama this year. Liz Warren would be like 2008 Obama, but she's not running. Bernie is 10+ years too old and has the scarlet "S". Uncle Joe is too establishment, like Hillary, instead of outsider, like Obama was. Sadly, no D is gonna beat her, and unless the R's are smart enough to nominate Kasich, no R will either.
[h=1]FBI looking into the security of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail setup[/h]
Clinton on the campaign trail
View Photos
Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton has hit the ground running, visiting several states on her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president.
By Carol D. Leonnig, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger August 4 at 9:20 PM
The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.
Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Ken*dall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.
Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.”
A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials.
Clinton: There are many ‘inaccuracies’ in new e-mail probe(0:55)
The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths to which she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.
The inquiries by the FBI follow concerns from government officials that potentially hundreds of e-mails that passed through Clinton’s private server contained classified or sensitive information. At this point, the probe is preliminary and is focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material.
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, declined to comment on the FBI’s actions. He noted that Clinton has called repeatedly for the State Department to release her e-mails to the public, a process that is ongoing.
In a statement, Merrill said that Clinton “did not send nor receive any emails that were marked classified at the time. We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails. We want that to happen as quickly and as transparently as possible.”
The controversy over Clinton’s e-mail dates to the summer of 2014, when, according to government officials, State Department lawyers realized they didn’t have access to some of her records as they prepared responses to congressional requests related to the 2012 attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.
In October 2014, the State Department asked four former secretaries to turn over e-mails in their private possession. In December, Clinton handed over55,000 pages of e-mails, which she said represented all of her work-related correspondence. She has said she deleted all other e-mails she had sent or received as secretary of state, indicating that they dealt only with personal matters.
VIEW GRAPHIC
Read the latest Hillary Clinton e-mails released by the State Department
In March, the New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a private e-mail system. Clinton has said she handled her
e-mail this way for the convenience of carrying just one phone.
Critics say Clinton’s private server arrangement put her discussions with some aides outside the reach of government investigators, congressional committees and courts seeking public records from the State Department.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote a letter to FBI Director James B. Comey on July 24 asking him what steps his office had taken to ensure that classified information held on Kendall’s thumb drive, and once kept on Clinton’s server, was being properly secured. A State Department official said that once the agency identified classified material in the e-mails in May, it instructed Clinton’s lawyers on “appropriate measures for physically securing” the e-mails.
Responsibility for setting up and maintaining the server that handled personal e-mail communications for Bill and Hillary Clinton passed through a number of different hands, starting with Clinton staffers with limited training in computer security and eventually expanding to Platte River.
In 2008, responsibility for the system was held by Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president who served as a personal assistant and helped research at least two of his books. Cooper had no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup. Cooper declined to comment.
“The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches,” Hillary Clinton said in March.
Those briefed on the server setup say the device installed for Bill Clinton was deemed too small for the addition of a sitting Cabinet official. Instead, a server that had been purchased for use by Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign was installed at the Chappaqua home.
With the new server came an additional specialist: Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as her campaign’s IT director. According to federal campaign finance records, Pagliano was paid by Clinton’s Senate leadership PAC through April 2009. The next month, he went to work for the State Department as an IT specialist, a department official said. The people briefed on the server indicated that he continued to act as the lead specialist responsible for it.
The e-mail system was not always reliable, these people said, with Pagliano summoned at various times to fix problems. Notably, the system crashed for days after New York was hit by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
That led to new conversations about the need for better security, durability and a more professional setup, according to these people. In 2013, the Clintons hired Platte River to maintain the data.
Merrill, the Clinton spokesman, declined to respond to detailed questions about the setup of the server.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google Plus
Share via Email
More Options
Resize Text
Share on Twitter
Share on Google Plus
Share via Email
More Options
Resize Text
Print Article
Comments 1421
Clinton on the campaign trail
View Photos
Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton has hit the ground running, visiting several states on her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president.
By Carol D. Leonnig, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger August 4 at 9:20 PM
The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.
Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Ken*dall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.
Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.”
A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials.
Clinton: There are many ‘inaccuracies’ in new e-mail probe(0:55)
The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths to which she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house.
The inquiries by the FBI follow concerns from government officials that potentially hundreds of e-mails that passed through Clinton’s private server contained classified or sensitive information. At this point, the probe is preliminary and is focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material.
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, declined to comment on the FBI’s actions. He noted that Clinton has called repeatedly for the State Department to release her e-mails to the public, a process that is ongoing.
In a statement, Merrill said that Clinton “did not send nor receive any emails that were marked classified at the time. We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails. We want that to happen as quickly and as transparently as possible.”
The controversy over Clinton’s e-mail dates to the summer of 2014, when, according to government officials, State Department lawyers realized they didn’t have access to some of her records as they prepared responses to congressional requests related to the 2012 attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.
In October 2014, the State Department asked four former secretaries to turn over e-mails in their private possession. In December, Clinton handed over55,000 pages of e-mails, which she said represented all of her work-related correspondence. She has said she deleted all other e-mails she had sent or received as secretary of state, indicating that they dealt only with personal matters.
VIEW GRAPHIC Read the latest Hillary Clinton e-mails released by the State Department
In March, the New York Times reported that Clinton exclusively used a private e-mail system. Clinton has said she handled her
e-mail this way for the convenience of carrying just one phone.
Critics say Clinton’s private server arrangement put her discussions with some aides outside the reach of government investigators, congressional committees and courts seeking public records from the State Department.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote a letter to FBI Director James B. Comey on July 24 asking him what steps his office had taken to ensure that classified information held on Kendall’s thumb drive, and once kept on Clinton’s server, was being properly secured. A State Department official said that once the agency identified classified material in the e-mails in May, it instructed Clinton’s lawyers on “appropriate measures for physically securing” the e-mails.
Responsibility for setting up and maintaining the server that handled personal e-mail communications for Bill and Hillary Clinton passed through a number of different hands, starting with Clinton staffers with limited training in computer security and eventually expanding to Platte River.
In 2008, responsibility for the system was held by Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president who served as a personal assistant and helped research at least two of his books. Cooper had no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup. Cooper declined to comment.
“The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches,” Hillary Clinton said in March.
Those briefed on the server setup say the device installed for Bill Clinton was deemed too small for the addition of a sitting Cabinet official. Instead, a server that had been purchased for use by Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign was installed at the Chappaqua home.
With the new server came an additional specialist: Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as her campaign’s IT director. According to federal campaign finance records, Pagliano was paid by Clinton’s Senate leadership PAC through April 2009. The next month, he went to work for the State Department as an IT specialist, a department official said. The people briefed on the server indicated that he continued to act as the lead specialist responsible for it.
The e-mail system was not always reliable, these people said, with Pagliano summoned at various times to fix problems. Notably, the system crashed for days after New York was hit by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
That led to new conversations about the need for better security, durability and a more professional setup, according to these people. In 2013, the Clintons hired Platte River to maintain the data.
Merrill, the Clinton spokesman, declined to respond to detailed questions about the setup of the server.
[h=2]Half of Clintons’ Charitable Giving in 2014 Went to Their Own Foundation[/h]Tax returns open Clinton up to charges of hypocrisy from critics
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Alana Goodman
August 5, 2015 5:00 am
Half of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable giving last year went to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to a review of the latest financial disclosures from their private foundation.
The Clintons earned more than $28 million in 2014 and claimed around $3 million in income as charitable tax deductions, according to tax returns released by Hillary Clinton’s campaign last Friday. The campaign emphasized Clinton’s charitable giving in a press statement, saying that it “represented 10.8 percent” of her income in 2014. But roughly half of that money—$1.8 million—appears to have been channeled to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
According to the tax returns, the Clintons gave $3 million in 2014 to the Clinton Family Foundation, a small private foundation that the family uses as a pass-through to other charities. Records show the CFF disbursed $3.7 million in 2014, including $1.8 million to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
That contribution was the family’s largest by a significant margin that year. They made numerous smaller donations to other groups, including the University of Arkansas, the American Ireland Fund, and the American Friends of the Peres Center.
The $1.8 million contribution is also by far the largest annual donation the Clintons have made to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in recent years. In the past five years combined, they gave a total of $1.1 million to the organization. Their last large donation was in 2008, when they gave $1 million.
While the Clintons do not receive direct compensation from the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, they do benefit from travel, and many of their longtime aides have served on its payroll.
The foundation has come under fire for its unusual structure. Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “Watch List” earlier this year because it said the organization did not meet its criteria due to its “atypical business model.”
The group is also under review from the Better Business Bureau, after failing to meet its transparency standards in the past.
Clinton’s newly released tax returns, which show that she and her husband have earned $140 million since 2007 could bolster Republican efforts to frame the former secretary of state as a wealthy elitist who is out of touch with average Americans. Vox reported Monday that Clinton has paid more in taxes since 2007—$57.5 million—than GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush has earned in his entire career spanning back to 1981.
The returns have also opened her up to charges of hypocrisy from critics.
Americans for Tax Reform slammed Clinton on Tuesday for forming an “Article 4 trust,” which the group said appears to be a method to avoid paying estate taxes—a tax Clinton has supported.
“Clinton has consistently voted for the Death Tax throughout her time in public office and forcefully condemned attempts to lower it,” ATF said in a statement. “But when it comes to her own finances, it is a different story. The newly released tax returns buttress earlier reports outlining the ways Clinton uses financial planning strategies that shield her Death Tax liability.”
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Alana Goodman
August 5, 2015 5:00 am
Half of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable giving last year went to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to a review of the latest financial disclosures from their private foundation.
The Clintons earned more than $28 million in 2014 and claimed around $3 million in income as charitable tax deductions, according to tax returns released by Hillary Clinton’s campaign last Friday. The campaign emphasized Clinton’s charitable giving in a press statement, saying that it “represented 10.8 percent” of her income in 2014. But roughly half of that money—$1.8 million—appears to have been channeled to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
According to the tax returns, the Clintons gave $3 million in 2014 to the Clinton Family Foundation, a small private foundation that the family uses as a pass-through to other charities. Records show the CFF disbursed $3.7 million in 2014, including $1.8 million to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
That contribution was the family’s largest by a significant margin that year. They made numerous smaller donations to other groups, including the University of Arkansas, the American Ireland Fund, and the American Friends of the Peres Center.
The $1.8 million contribution is also by far the largest annual donation the Clintons have made to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in recent years. In the past five years combined, they gave a total of $1.1 million to the organization. Their last large donation was in 2008, when they gave $1 million.
While the Clintons do not receive direct compensation from the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, they do benefit from travel, and many of their longtime aides have served on its payroll.
The foundation has come under fire for its unusual structure. Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “Watch List” earlier this year because it said the organization did not meet its criteria due to its “atypical business model.”
The group is also under review from the Better Business Bureau, after failing to meet its transparency standards in the past.
Clinton’s newly released tax returns, which show that she and her husband have earned $140 million since 2007 could bolster Republican efforts to frame the former secretary of state as a wealthy elitist who is out of touch with average Americans. Vox reported Monday that Clinton has paid more in taxes since 2007—$57.5 million—than GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush has earned in his entire career spanning back to 1981.
The returns have also opened her up to charges of hypocrisy from critics.
Americans for Tax Reform slammed Clinton on Tuesday for forming an “Article 4 trust,” which the group said appears to be a method to avoid paying estate taxes—a tax Clinton has supported.
“Clinton has consistently voted for the Death Tax throughout her time in public office and forcefully condemned attempts to lower it,” ATF said in a statement. “But when it comes to her own finances, it is a different story. The newly released tax returns buttress earlier reports outlining the ways Clinton uses financial planning strategies that shield her Death Tax liability.”
[h=2]Group Files to Help States Fighting Soros-Backed Voter ID Lawsuits[/h]Top Clinton campaign lawyer also behind challenges to voter ID laws ahead of 2016 elections
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Joe Schoffstall
August 5, 2015 5:00 am
An election integrity group has filed motions to assist three states that have been hit with anti-voter ID lawsuits.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election group headed by attorney J. Christian Adams, is seeking to appear alongside the states in court to defend their laws. The group seeks to “provide an understanding of this national strategy and the national implications” of the lawsuits in a way “any singular defendant is unlikely to provide.”
The foundation says the voter ID lawsuits are a coordinated national attack on integrity that can change the outcome of elections.
Lawsuits targeting the three states are being led by Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer and are fueled with money from liberal billionaire George Soros. Many anticipate that the effort will expand to other states as the 2016 elections approach.
“These three coordinated national attacks on election integrity were filed because partisan interests realize process rules can change election outcomes,” Adams said. “Some political candidates prefer elections with dirty rolls and unverified individuals casting ballots at the same time they register to vote. But most Americans do not.”
The motions filed by the group seek to “prevent treasured civil rights statutes such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 from being turned into partisan weapons to leverage federal power over state elections merely to advantage one political party and disadvantage another.”
Adams hopes to assist the states against the lawsuits that were launched in Ohio this past May and in Wisconsin and Virginia in June
Marc Elias, a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie and a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, filed the lawsuits against the three states. The anti-voter ID challenges are backed with millions of dollars from George Soros.
Elias first contemplated taking action against multiple states with voter identification laws in January 2014. When Soros learned of what Elias had planned, the liberal billionaire put $5 million behind the efforts.
“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times at the time.
Elias is working independently on the lawsuits although they are supported by the Clinton campaign. The Washington Free Beacon previously sought comment from both Elias and Soros’s press office on their multi-state effort challenging the laws. Neither returned the inquiries.
“This is a national strategy to affect the outcome of a national election,” Adams told the Free Beacon.
In June, as the lawsuit submissions were underway, Clinton began publicly stepping up her attack on voter identification laws.
During a June 4 speech at historically black Texas Southern University, Clinton called on Republicans to stop “fear-mongering” over a “phantom epidemic” of election fraud.
“I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say,” Clinton said during her speech to a half-empty arena at the university.
Clinton also called for a universal, automatic voter registration system for 18-year-olds and expressed her support for extending early voting up to 20 days before an election.
As of March 25, 2015, a total of 34 states have passed voter identification laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of the 34 states, 32 currently have laws that are enforced.
Elias and Soros are expected to bring additional lawsuits in other states as part of their national campaign.
SHARE
TWEET
George Soros / AP
BY: Joe Schoffstall
August 5, 2015 5:00 am
An election integrity group has filed motions to assist three states that have been hit with anti-voter ID lawsuits.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election group headed by attorney J. Christian Adams, is seeking to appear alongside the states in court to defend their laws. The group seeks to “provide an understanding of this national strategy and the national implications” of the lawsuits in a way “any singular defendant is unlikely to provide.”
The foundation says the voter ID lawsuits are a coordinated national attack on integrity that can change the outcome of elections.
Lawsuits targeting the three states are being led by Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer and are fueled with money from liberal billionaire George Soros. Many anticipate that the effort will expand to other states as the 2016 elections approach.
“These three coordinated national attacks on election integrity were filed because partisan interests realize process rules can change election outcomes,” Adams said. “Some political candidates prefer elections with dirty rolls and unverified individuals casting ballots at the same time they register to vote. But most Americans do not.”
The motions filed by the group seek to “prevent treasured civil rights statutes such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 from being turned into partisan weapons to leverage federal power over state elections merely to advantage one political party and disadvantage another.”
Adams hopes to assist the states against the lawsuits that were launched in Ohio this past May and in Wisconsin and Virginia in June
Marc Elias, a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie and a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, filed the lawsuits against the three states. The anti-voter ID challenges are backed with millions of dollars from George Soros.
Elias first contemplated taking action against multiple states with voter identification laws in January 2014. When Soros learned of what Elias had planned, the liberal billionaire put $5 million behind the efforts.
“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times at the time.
Elias is working independently on the lawsuits although they are supported by the Clinton campaign. The Washington Free Beacon previously sought comment from both Elias and Soros’s press office on their multi-state effort challenging the laws. Neither returned the inquiries.
“This is a national strategy to affect the outcome of a national election,” Adams told the Free Beacon.
In June, as the lawsuit submissions were underway, Clinton began publicly stepping up her attack on voter identification laws.
During a June 4 speech at historically black Texas Southern University, Clinton called on Republicans to stop “fear-mongering” over a “phantom epidemic” of election fraud.
“I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say,” Clinton said during her speech to a half-empty arena at the university.
Clinton also called for a universal, automatic voter registration system for 18-year-olds and expressed her support for extending early voting up to 20 days before an election.
As of March 25, 2015, a total of 34 states have passed voter identification laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of the 34 states, 32 currently have laws that are enforced.
Elias and Soros are expected to bring additional lawsuits in other states as part of their national campaign.
[h=1]FBI INVESTIGATING HILLARY CLINTON’S PRIVATE EMAIL[/h]
AP Photo/Gaston De Cardenas
by BREITBART NEWS4 Aug 20151,039
[h=2]Hillary Clinton’s lawyer confirms with the Washington Post that the federal government has contacted him about the security of her private email server while she served as Secretary of State.[/h]From the Washington Post:
The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.
Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Ken*dall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI was not targeting her.
Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.”
A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials.
The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her presidential campaign.
Read the rest of the story here.
by BREITBART NEWS4 Aug 20151,039
[h=2]Hillary Clinton’s lawyer confirms with the Washington Post that the federal government has contacted him about the security of her private email server while she served as Secretary of State.[/h]From the Washington Post:
The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.
Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Ken*dall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI was not targeting her.
Kendall confirmed the contact, saying: “The government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.”
A lawyer for the Denver company, Platte River Networks, declined to comment, as did multiple Justice Department officials.
The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her presidential campaign.
Read the rest of the story here.
Getty
[h=1]Poll: Hillary maintains lead, but Dem voters don’t mind Bernie[/h]By ISABELLE TAFT
8/5/15 11:02 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Hillary Clinton has maintained a commanding lead among Democratic primary voters, but most of her supporters also wouldn’t mind if Bernie Sanders became the nominee, according to a poll released Wednesday.
The Monmouth University poll including 429 registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats or leaning toward that party, found 52 percent support Clinton. Sanders was at 16 percent and Joe Biden, who reportedly is weighing a presidential run, received support from 12 percent of respondents. Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb each had support of 2 percent of Democratic respondents. The results are essentially the same as Monmouth’s July poll results.
The poll found that 56 percent of Democrats said they would be enthusiastic or satisfied if Sanders became the nominee, while fewer than 1-in-4 said they would be dissatisfied or upset. Among Clinton supporters, half said they would feel positively about a Sanders ticket.
ALSO ON POLITICO
[h=3]Jeb stocks campaign store with pro-dad shirts[/h]ELIZA COLLINS
Clinton’s favorability among Democrats has declined somewhat, from 82 percent in December to 71 percent in Wednesday’s Monmouth’s poll. Meanwhile, Sanders’s popularity has increased — in December, 22 percent of Democrats viewed him positively and 65 percent had no opinion. According to the most recent poll, he had a 42 percent favorable rating and 12 percent unfavorable rating, lower than Clinton’s 17 percent unfavorable rating. Forty-five percent of respondents said they have no opinion of Sanders.
The results showing Democrats would be satisfied with a Sanders victory may be cause for worry in the Clinton camp, as they indicate a lack of deep enthusiasm for her candidacy.
Meanwhile in New Hampshire, a poll released Tuesday showed Clinton and Sanders in a statistical tie in the Granite state. The WMUR Granite State poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, found 42 percent of likely Democratic primary-goers support Clinton and 36 percent support Sanders, within the margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent. But the poll also indicated many New Hampshire voters aren’t yet paying close attention to the race — just 20 percent said they have decided who they’ll support, 27 percent are leaning toward a candidate and 53 percent are still up for grabs.
The Monmouth poll was conducted from July 30 to August 2 with a national random sample of 1,203 adults. The results are based on a subsample of 429 registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party. The WMUR Granite State Poll was surveyed 722 New Hampshire adults from July 22 to July 30.
[h=2]Why Hillary’s private server existed, example #4,204: Putting the ‘BS’ in ‘UBS’[/h]
By Doug Powers • July 30, 2015 08:48 AM
**Written by Doug Powers
As usual, before the following story about another “pay to play” Clinton story, Detective Drebin has a message for the mainstream media, not that it’s necessary:
The mountain of Bill & Hillary “coincidences” is now so high you’d need a team of Sherpas to safely make the trek to the top to see what’s up there, but unfortunately you can only get guides in that particular region by first making a handsome donation to the Clinton Foundation.
Here’s the latest “coincidence” that occurred while Hillary was secretary of state:
As secretary of state, intervening in a corporation’s dispute with the IRS can lead to good things… coincidentally, of course:
That also shows just how seriously Wall Street takes Hillary’s pledges to bring them down (nudge, nudge).
The Wall Street Journal calls things like this “Clinton’s complicated ties.” If the secretary of state in question were, say, Condi Rice, I don’t think “complicated” would be the word the media used.
**Written by Doug Powers
|
**Written by Doug Powers
As usual, before the following story about another “pay to play” Clinton story, Detective Drebin has a message for the mainstream media, not that it’s necessary:
Here’s the latest “coincidence” that occurred while Hillary was secretary of state:
Donations to the Clinton Foundation by Swiss bank UBS increased tenfold after Hillary Clinton intervened to settle a dispute with the IRS early in her tenure as secretary of state, according to a published report.
According to the Wall Street Journal, total donations by UBS to the foundation grew from less than $60,000 at the end of 2008 to approximately $600,000 by the end of 2014. The Journal reports that the bank also lent $32 million through entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs it launched in association with the foundation, while paying former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of corporate question-and-answer sessions with UBS Chief Executive Bob McCann.
Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, ties between the Clinton Foundation, major corporations and foreign governments have come under increasing scrutiny as Hillary Clinton begins her presidential campaign. The UBS case is unusual in that it shows a top U.S. diplomat intervening on behalf of a major overseas bank in a situation where federal prosecutors and the Justice Department had been the lead entity.
At what point does a public official taking action that favors a particular entity and then personally profiting from the decision, directly and indirectly, become “evidence of wrongdoing”? Also, at what point is deleting information on an email server that might have contained that “evidence of wrongdoing” considered “evidence of wrongdoing”? That said, there isn’t a more fitting corporate name for the Clintons to be involved with than “UBS.”According to the Wall Street Journal, total donations by UBS to the foundation grew from less than $60,000 at the end of 2008 to approximately $600,000 by the end of 2014. The Journal reports that the bank also lent $32 million through entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs it launched in association with the foundation, while paying former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of corporate question-and-answer sessions with UBS Chief Executive Bob McCann.
Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, ties between the Clinton Foundation, major corporations and foreign governments have come under increasing scrutiny as Hillary Clinton begins her presidential campaign. The UBS case is unusual in that it shows a top U.S. diplomat intervening on behalf of a major overseas bank in a situation where federal prosecutors and the Justice Department had been the lead entity.
As secretary of state, intervening in a corporation’s dispute with the IRS can lead to good things… coincidentally, of course:
The Wall Street Journal calls things like this “Clinton’s complicated ties.” If the secretary of state in question were, say, Condi Rice, I don’t think “complicated” would be the word the media used.
**Written by Doug Powers
[h=1]FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’[/h]By Jamie Schram, Geoff Earle and Laura Italiano
August 5, 2015 | 7:26pm
Modal Trigger
Hillary ClintonPhoto: WireImage
[h=3]MORE ON:[/h][h=6]HILLARY CLINTON[/h]
[h=5]Bernie Sanders closes in on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire[/h]
[h=5]Huma planned party for Clinton pal on taxpayers' dime[/h]
[h=5]FBI investigating security of Hillary's private email server[/h]
[h=5]The next POTUS needs to have a hot son[/h]
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified.
The inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton e-mails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.
If Clinton is proven to have knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.
The statute — which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005, is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.
Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high — they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.
Clinton’s lawyer in the e-mail probe is longtime Bill Clinton attorney David Kendall, who also repped Petraeus, who pled guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.
“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.
“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
August 5, 2015 | 7:26pm
Modal Trigger
[h=3]MORE ON:[/h][h=6]HILLARY CLINTON[/h]
[h=5]Bernie Sanders closes in on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire[/h]
[h=5]Huma planned party for Clinton pal on taxpayers' dime[/h]
[h=5]FBI investigating security of Hillary's private email server[/h]
[h=5]The next POTUS needs to have a hot son[/h]
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified.
The inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton e-mails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.
If Clinton is proven to have knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.
The statute — which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005, is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.
Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high — they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.
Clinton’s lawyer in the e-mail probe is longtime Bill Clinton attorney David Kendall, who also repped Petraeus, who pled guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.
“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.
“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[h=2]Wanted: The Clinton Server[/h]FBI yet to prove wrongdoing in email scandal, media points out
BY: Andrew Stiles
August 5, 2015 3:58 pm
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
The FBI has opened an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server—in violation of administration policy—during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Washington Postreports [emphasis added]:
The FBI has also contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, regarding his possession of a thumb drive containing his client’s non-deleted work emails, some of which have been found to contain classified information.
The real culprit here is her email server, who will be brought to justice.
Unfortunately, even the most enhanced form of interrogation is unlikely to be effective on account of Hillary’s decision to wipe her server clean, which is something that millions of everyday Americans (who aren’t under investigation) do on a daily basis.
BY: Andrew Stiles
August 5, 2015 3:58 pm
SHARE
TWEET
The FBI has opened an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server—in violation of administration policy—during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Washington Postreports [emphasis added]:
The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.
The media wants to be sure you don’t miss this point, which is probably why they keep repeating it almost verbatim on the air. We all know how angry the Clinton campaign was after the New York Times misreported a few details about Hillary’s sketchy email set-up:
The FBI has also contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, regarding his possession of a thumb drive containing his client’s non-deleted work emails, some of which have been found to contain classified information.
The inquiries are bringing to light new information about Clinton’s use of the system and the lengths to which she went to install a private channel of communication outside government control — a setup that has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house…
In October 2014, the State Department asked four former secretaries to turn over e-mails in their private possession. In December, Clinton handed over 55,000 pages of e-mails, which she said represented all of her work-related correspondence. She has said she deleted all other e-mails she had sent or received as secretary of state, indicating that they dealt only with personal matters.
But just to be clear, the FBI inquiry into whether Clinton did anything wrong has not preemptively accused her of any wrongdoing.For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house…
In October 2014, the State Department asked four former secretaries to turn over e-mails in their private possession. In December, Clinton handed over 55,000 pages of e-mails, which she said represented all of her work-related correspondence. She has said she deleted all other e-mails she had sent or received as secretary of state, indicating that they dealt only with personal matters.
The real culprit here is her email server, who will be brought to justice.
Unfortunately, even the most enhanced form of interrogation is unlikely to be effective on account of Hillary’s decision to wipe her server clean, which is something that millions of everyday Americans (who aren’t under investigation) do on a daily basis.
[h=1]BILL CLINTON BAGGED $16 MILLION FROM COMPANY THAT RECEIVED MILLIONS FROM HILLARY’S STATE DEPT.[/h]
by PETER SCHWEIZER5 Aug 20152,328
[h=2]Newly released financial disclosures reveal Bill Clinton received $16.46 million in payments from a George Soros-backed for-profit education company, as Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled tens of millions of dollars to a group run by the company’s chairman.[/h]With $4 billion in annual revenue, Laureate Education is America’s largest for-profit college company. From 2010 until just days before the 2015 release of Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton served as Laureate’s “honorary chancellor.” When the Clinton campaign team obtained a copy of the book and its Clinton-Laureate connection revelation, Bill Clinton abruptly resigned.
Laureate’s chairman and longtime Clinton crony, Douglas Becker, is also the chairman of a nonprofit sister organization called the International Youth Foundation (IYF). Indeed, IYF’s offices are less than a mile from Laureate’s in Baltimore. Shortly after Laureate made Bill Clinton its honorary chancellor in April 2010, Hillary Clinton made Laureate part of her State Department Global Partnership. IYF received USAID funds before Hillary’s tenure at the State Dept. But the grants the group received exploded after Bill Clinton was put on the Laureate payroll.
According to a Bloomberg analysis of the Clinton Cash revelation: “In 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”
As the leader of the embattled for-profit college industry, Laureate has come under fire and been investigated for its practices in monetizing education, reports the Washington Post. Still, Clinton proudly championed the group that paid him over $16 million and allowed his image to be plastered all over Laureate’s $200 million annual marketing materials, even as Hillary Clinton pumped tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Laureate’s sister group.
9499
112
1376
by PETER SCHWEIZER5 Aug 20152,328
[h=2]Newly released financial disclosures reveal Bill Clinton received $16.46 million in payments from a George Soros-backed for-profit education company, as Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled tens of millions of dollars to a group run by the company’s chairman.[/h]With $4 billion in annual revenue, Laureate Education is America’s largest for-profit college company. From 2010 until just days before the 2015 release of Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton served as Laureate’s “honorary chancellor.” When the Clinton campaign team obtained a copy of the book and its Clinton-Laureate connection revelation, Bill Clinton abruptly resigned.
Laureate’s chairman and longtime Clinton crony, Douglas Becker, is also the chairman of a nonprofit sister organization called the International Youth Foundation (IYF). Indeed, IYF’s offices are less than a mile from Laureate’s in Baltimore. Shortly after Laureate made Bill Clinton its honorary chancellor in April 2010, Hillary Clinton made Laureate part of her State Department Global Partnership. IYF received USAID funds before Hillary’s tenure at the State Dept. But the grants the group received exploded after Bill Clinton was put on the Laureate payroll.
According to a Bloomberg analysis of the Clinton Cash revelation: “In 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”
As the leader of the embattled for-profit college industry, Laureate has come under fire and been investigated for its practices in monetizing education, reports the Washington Post. Still, Clinton proudly championed the group that paid him over $16 million and allowed his image to be plastered all over Laureate’s $200 million annual marketing materials, even as Hillary Clinton pumped tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Laureate’s sister group.
[h=2]Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Has a Gender Pay Problem[/h]Analysis: Women made less money than men in first months of Clinton campaign
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
August 6, 2015 5:00 am
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has consistently paid its female staffers less than it has paid males, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of the campaign’spublic payroll records.
In both May and June, the only two full months of available data since the campaign launched, the median salary of a female on Clinton’s staff was found to be far smaller than that of a man.
In May, women on her staff earned 88 cents for each dollar that was earned by men. In June, the campaign staff grew by 55 employees and women fared even worse, earning just 87 cents for each dollar earned by men.
When projected out to reflect annual salary figures, it was calculated that the median annual salary for a woman would be about $7,000 less than the median male salary.
The payroll figures were compiled from official campaign expense records filed to the Federal Election Commission, which cover the dates ranging from when the campaign launched on April 12 through June 30. Employees who did not receive the standard two payroll disbursements in each month were excluded from that month’s analysis.
April payroll disbursements, most of which came on the last day of the month, were not included in the analysis—though the two largest payments on that date were made to men. Fundraiser Dennis Cheng and research director Tony Carrk were paid $9,928.74 and $8,351.53, respectively, on April 30.
Also not factored in to the calculations is the campaign’s most senior operative John Podesta, who is the chairman of the campaign. His payments are not categorized on the filing as payroll, but rather as disbursements for “travel and subsistence.”
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign said the payroll data listed in the FEC report do not provide “actual salary information.”
“Disbursements listed on the FEC report do not represent actual salary information,” said spokesman Josh Schwerin. “They do not take into account any withholdings for taxes, benefits or 401k contributions. These amounts vary per employee making it impossible to do the assessment you claim to be doing with any amount of accuracy.”
Mark J. Perry, an economics professor at University of Michigan and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Washington Free Beacon that no gender pay comparisons take into account the factors Schwerin pointed to.
“When comparing earnings by gender, items such as withholdings for taxes, benefits and 401k contributions are never considered,” said Perry. “Both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau, the two most respected national authorities on income, compare median earnings for men and women on a pre-tax basis, without making any adjustments for taxes, benefits or 401k contributions.”
A 2014 BLS study on women’s earnings explicitly states that the data for its study “represent earnings before taxes and other deductions.”
Census, which is responsible for the statistic used by Clinton that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, defines earnings as money wage earned “before deductions are made for items such as taxes.”
“A comparison of Clinton’s campaign staff’s monthly salaries by gender is the exact same standard comparison that is always used,” Perry said.
Though women are faring worse financially than men, they are faring far better than women who worked for Clinton’s Senate office.
A Washington Free Beacon analysis of her office’s salary data from 2002 to 2008 found that women were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, and that the median salary for a woman was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man.
The Clinton campaign confirmed the accuracy of the findings.
Despite this deficiency, Clinton has chosen to make the issue of equal pay for women a central theme of her presidential campaign.
“It’s way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job,” Clinton said during her major July economic policy address.
Perry said Clinton should direct her “outrage” at her own campaign.
“Hillary Clinton must be pretty outraged to learn now that women working on her own presidential campaign earned 12 percent less than male workers in May, and 13 percent less in June,” Perry said. “It’s very likely that the typical female staffer working for Hillary will earn almost $7,000 less than her male counterpart over the next year, giving Mrs. Clinton every right to be outraged.”
Perry, who recently calculated the gender pay gap in President Barack Obama’s White House, said he was not surprised by the Free Beacon’s findings about Clinton’s campaign staff. He called it the “ultimate in political hypocrisy.”
“It is the ultimate in political hypocrisy when pay gap activists like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton lecture us about gender pay disparities, but yet have glass ceilings in their own organizations,” Perry said.
Perry, who argues that gender pay disparity is due to factors beyond discrimination, said the real outrage is the decision by Clinton to continue to grandstand about closing the gender pay gap.
“The biggest outrage is that the statistical fraud and political demagoguery about the gender pay gap continue to be used for political purposes by politicians who have gender pay disparities and glass ceilings within their own organizations,” Perry said.
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Brent Scher
August 6, 2015 5:00 am
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has consistently paid its female staffers less than it has paid males, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of the campaign’spublic payroll records.
In both May and June, the only two full months of available data since the campaign launched, the median salary of a female on Clinton’s staff was found to be far smaller than that of a man.
In May, women on her staff earned 88 cents for each dollar that was earned by men. In June, the campaign staff grew by 55 employees and women fared even worse, earning just 87 cents for each dollar earned by men.
When projected out to reflect annual salary figures, it was calculated that the median annual salary for a woman would be about $7,000 less than the median male salary.
The payroll figures were compiled from official campaign expense records filed to the Federal Election Commission, which cover the dates ranging from when the campaign launched on April 12 through June 30. Employees who did not receive the standard two payroll disbursements in each month were excluded from that month’s analysis.
April payroll disbursements, most of which came on the last day of the month, were not included in the analysis—though the two largest payments on that date were made to men. Fundraiser Dennis Cheng and research director Tony Carrk were paid $9,928.74 and $8,351.53, respectively, on April 30.
Also not factored in to the calculations is the campaign’s most senior operative John Podesta, who is the chairman of the campaign. His payments are not categorized on the filing as payroll, but rather as disbursements for “travel and subsistence.”
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign said the payroll data listed in the FEC report do not provide “actual salary information.”
“Disbursements listed on the FEC report do not represent actual salary information,” said spokesman Josh Schwerin. “They do not take into account any withholdings for taxes, benefits or 401k contributions. These amounts vary per employee making it impossible to do the assessment you claim to be doing with any amount of accuracy.”
Mark J. Perry, an economics professor at University of Michigan and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Washington Free Beacon that no gender pay comparisons take into account the factors Schwerin pointed to.
“When comparing earnings by gender, items such as withholdings for taxes, benefits and 401k contributions are never considered,” said Perry. “Both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau, the two most respected national authorities on income, compare median earnings for men and women on a pre-tax basis, without making any adjustments for taxes, benefits or 401k contributions.”
A 2014 BLS study on women’s earnings explicitly states that the data for its study “represent earnings before taxes and other deductions.”
Census, which is responsible for the statistic used by Clinton that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, defines earnings as money wage earned “before deductions are made for items such as taxes.”
“A comparison of Clinton’s campaign staff’s monthly salaries by gender is the exact same standard comparison that is always used,” Perry said.
Though women are faring worse financially than men, they are faring far better than women who worked for Clinton’s Senate office.
A Washington Free Beacon analysis of her office’s salary data from 2002 to 2008 found that women were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, and that the median salary for a woman was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man.
The Clinton campaign confirmed the accuracy of the findings.
Despite this deficiency, Clinton has chosen to make the issue of equal pay for women a central theme of her presidential campaign.
“It’s way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job,” Clinton said during her major July economic policy address.
Perry said Clinton should direct her “outrage” at her own campaign.
“Hillary Clinton must be pretty outraged to learn now that women working on her own presidential campaign earned 12 percent less than male workers in May, and 13 percent less in June,” Perry said. “It’s very likely that the typical female staffer working for Hillary will earn almost $7,000 less than her male counterpart over the next year, giving Mrs. Clinton every right to be outraged.”
Perry, who recently calculated the gender pay gap in President Barack Obama’s White House, said he was not surprised by the Free Beacon’s findings about Clinton’s campaign staff. He called it the “ultimate in political hypocrisy.”
“It is the ultimate in political hypocrisy when pay gap activists like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton lecture us about gender pay disparities, but yet have glass ceilings in their own organizations,” Perry said.
Perry, who argues that gender pay disparity is due to factors beyond discrimination, said the real outrage is the decision by Clinton to continue to grandstand about closing the gender pay gap.
“The biggest outrage is that the statistical fraud and political demagoguery about the gender pay gap continue to be used for political purposes by politicians who have gender pay disparities and glass ceilings within their own organizations,” Perry said.
Seriously
[h=2]Finney Admits Clinton Has Not Seen Planned Parenthood Videos[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Daniel Bassali
August 5, 2015 3:08 pm
Hillary Clinton campaign spokeswoman Karen Finney admitted to MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Wednesday that Clinton had yet to view the graphic Planned Parenthood videos that have sparked outrage against the organization.
“I think that she said that she’s seen images or pictures. but she hasn’t seen the videos,” Finney said.
Despite previously calling the videos “disturbing,” Clinton has come out in full support of the largest provider of abortions in America. Finney largely ignored the MSNBC host’s other questions concerning the videos, which show officials discussing fetal tissue harvesting among other topics.
Last week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest acknowledged he was “merely repeating” Planned Parenthood talking points during a press briefing because he had not seen the videos and did not know if President Obama had.
Roberts challenged Finney’s response as disingenuous, tying them to Earnest’s and noting people are having a “visceral reaction” to the videos.
“But you make yourself vulnerable and Hillary Clinton makes herself vulnerable, President Obama makes himself vulnerable, Josh Earnest makes himself vulnerable if you don’t look at these videos in full context, but then come out in defense of them,” Roberts said.
[h=2]Finney Admits Clinton Has Not Seen Planned Parenthood Videos[/h]SHARE
TWEET
BY: Daniel Bassali
August 5, 2015 3:08 pm
Hillary Clinton campaign spokeswoman Karen Finney admitted to MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Wednesday that Clinton had yet to view the graphic Planned Parenthood videos that have sparked outrage against the organization.
“I think that she said that she’s seen images or pictures. but she hasn’t seen the videos,” Finney said.
Despite previously calling the videos “disturbing,” Clinton has come out in full support of the largest provider of abortions in America. Finney largely ignored the MSNBC host’s other questions concerning the videos, which show officials discussing fetal tissue harvesting among other topics.
Last week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest acknowledged he was “merely repeating” Planned Parenthood talking points during a press briefing because he had not seen the videos and did not know if President Obama had.
Roberts challenged Finney’s response as disingenuous, tying them to Earnest’s and noting people are having a “visceral reaction” to the videos.
“But you make yourself vulnerable and Hillary Clinton makes herself vulnerable, President Obama makes himself vulnerable, Josh Earnest makes himself vulnerable if you don’t look at these videos in full context, but then come out in defense of them,” Roberts said.
"Kenyan-born" Obama is guilty of those crimes and then some.
Washington is a criminal cabal.
You're not going to convince any sane person that Patraeus is guilty for leaking classified info but Hillary is innocent.
She should be in jail, not running for president.
The political class is a fucking joke.
