Powered By Blogger
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Hillary played the Dirtiest Trick ever played in presidential history

by Michael Goodwin
For law enforcement, Congress and even journalists, exposing misdeeds is like peeling an onion. Each layer you remove gets you closer to the truth.
So it is with the scandalous behavior of the FBI during its probe into whether President Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia in 2016. One layer at a time, we’re learning how flawed and dirty that probe was.
A top layer involves the texts between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her married lover, Peter Strzok, the lead agent on the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe. They casually mention an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won the election and a plan for Strzok to go easy on Clinton because she probably would be their next boss.
Those exchanges, seen in the light of subsequent events, lead to a reasonable conclusion that the fix was in among then-Director James Comey’s team to hurt Trump and help Clinton.
Another layer involves the declassified House memo, which indicates the FBI and Justice Department depended heavily on the unverified Russian dossier about Trump to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page, an American citizen and briefly a Trump adviser.
The House memo also reveals that Comey and others withheld from the secret surveillance court key partisan facts that would have cast doubt on the dossier. Officials never revealed to the judges that the document was paid for by Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee or that Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier, said he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected.”
A third layer of the onion involves the revelations in the letter GOP Sens. Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham wrote to the Justice Department. They urge a criminal investigation into whether Steele lied to the FBI about how much and when he fed the dossier to the anti-Trump media.
The letter is compelling in showing that Steele said one thing under oath to a British court and something different to the FBI. The contradictions matter because the agency relied on Steele’s credibility in both the FISA applications and its actual investigation. Strangely, even after it fired him for breaking its rule forbidding media contact, the FBI continued to praise his credibility in court.
If that were all the senators’ letter accomplished, it would be enough. But it does much more.
It also reveals that two former journalists linked to Clinton, separately identified as the odious Sidney Blumenthal and a man named Cody Shearer, created and gave a State Department official additional unverified allegations against Trump.
The official passed those documents to Steele, who passed them to the FBI, which reportedly saw them as further evidence that Trump worked with Russians. But as Grassley, head of the Judiciary Committee, and Graham write, “It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility.”
The State Department official involved in the episode, Jonathan Winer, wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post Friday in which he confessed to the senators’ chronology while offering a benign description of his motives. Winer also admitted he shared all the unverified allegations from the Clinton hitmen with other State Department officials.
There are many more layers of the onion to peel, but here’s where we are now: It increasingly appears that the Clinton machine was the secret, original source of virtually all the allegations about Trump and Russia that led to the FBI investigation.
In addition, the campaign and its associates, including Steele, were behind the explosion of anonymously sourced media reports during the fall of 2016 about that investigation.
Thus, the Democratic nominee paid for and created allegations against her Republican opponent, gave them to law enforcement, then tipped friendly media to the investigation. And it is almost certain FBI agents supporting Clinton were among the anonymous sources.
In fact, the Clinton connections are so fundamental that there probably would not have been an FBI investigation without her involvement.
That makes hers a brazen work of political genius — and perhaps the dirtiest dirty trick ever played in presidential history. Following her manipulation of the party operation to thwart Bernie Sanders in the primary, Clinton is revealed as relentlessly ruthless in her quest to be president.
The only thing that went wrong is that she lost the election. And based on what we know now, her claims about Trump were false.
Of the charges against four men brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, none involves helping Russia interfere with the election.
And neither the FBI nor Mueller has vouched for the truthfulness of the Blumenthal and Shearer claims or the Steele dossier. ­Instead, the dossier faces defamation lawsuits in the US and England from several people named in it.
In fairness, one person besides Steele has been cited as justification for the FBI probe. George Papadopoulos, a bit but ambitious player in the Trump orbit, met with a professor in Europe early in 2016 who told him the Kremlin had Clinton’s private e-mails.
In May 2016, Papadopoulos told the story to an Australian diplomat and two months later, in July, the Australian government alerted the FBI.
However, a full timeline convincingly points to Steele as the initial spark. He was hired by a Clinton contractor in June of 2016, and filed his first allegations against Trump on June 20. Two weeks later, on July 5, he met with an FBI agent in London, The Washington Post reported, and filed three more allegations that month, including one about Carter Page.
At any rate, it is certain that Steele and other Clinton operators provided all the allegations about Trump himself that the FBI started with and that Mueller inherited.
For Clinton, creating a cloud over Trump’s presidency and helping to put the nation through continuing turmoil is a victory of sorts. America is fortunate it’s her only victory.

Friday, October 28, 2016

FBI Re-Opening Criminal Investigation of Hillary







The FBI is probing new emails related to Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said in a Friday letter.
"In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony," Comey wrote.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he added.
"Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be signifcant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony," Comey concluded.
Stocks turned negative after the report of the new probe. Many analysts have said that markets were pricing in a Clinton victory in November.
The letter was addressed to several lawmakers who chaired committees relevant to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server.

FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened

NBC News reported that Judiciary Committee Republicans were not expecting this news from the FBI, and it is not in response to any question from the Senate Judiciary Republicans.
"We're interested to know what else they're going to be looking at," a spokesman for the Judiciary Committee Republicans said.
This story is developing. Please check back for further updates.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Hillary loses New Hampshire by 22 % but gets 2 more delegates than Bernie ????


Do you know that Bernie Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win a major presidential primary?  
You hadn't heard that? 
 Here's the point: 
Hillary Clinton tried to stop the first African-American from being elected president.  Now she's trying to stop the first Jewish-American from being elected president.  What a bigot! Doesn't Mrs. Clinton realize she should get out of the way and let these minorities finally have their shot at things? 
She tried to stop the first black president; he won.  Now she's trying to stop the first Jewish president, and he just mopped the floor with her. 
 Do you want to know how screwed up the Democrat primary is?  
Hillary lost in New Hampshire... I don't even know if Bernie knows this yet.  If he doesn't know, somebody's gonna have to tell him.  Hillary Clinton loses by 22 points and got two more delegates than Bernie Sanders did last night.  
I'm not kidding you. This is from The Daily Caller:
"Though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide over Hillary Clinton, he will likely receive fewer delegates than she will. Sanders won 60% of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, [Bernie Sanders] leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while [Hillary] leaves with at least 15 delegates." 
Now, what kind of system is that?  
You go in and you get skunked, you get schlonged, you get landslid'd out by 22 points -- and you leave the state with two more delegates than Bernie.  
Bernie's always talking about how this system's rigged and that system's rigged and everything else, the economy's rigged and Wall Street's rigged.  Wait 'til he finds out that New Hampshire was rigged.  
His reaction is gonna be, "Wait a minute! I got 60% of the vote; she got 38% of it. What do you mean, I got two fewer delegates?"  
New Hampshire has 24 pledged delegates which are allotted based on the popular vote.  Sanders has 13; Clinton has nine.  There are two currently allotted to neither, but under committee rules, DNC rules, New Hampshire has eight superdelegates, and Hillary owns them.   Don't you just love it?

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Hillary Clinton a classic Anti-Semite?


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wrote an op-ed for the liberal Jewish Newspaper the Forward. In the piece she pledges her continued friendship with the State of Israel, and to Israeli Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

That pledge should raise the eyebrows of any fair-minded observer.

If one looks at Hillary Clinton’s public history one finds a lifetime of anti-Israel positions. 
But wait some might say, Hillary was a big supporter of Israel when she was in the U.S. Senate. 
Indeed, she was. 
With the possible exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009– except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hillary Clinton has never been pro-Israel. And when she held the position of Secretary of State, she helped Barack Obama craft his anti-Israel positions.
Even before her marriage to Bill, Hillary Clinton was opposing Israel and promoting the forces of terrorism. 

In his book American Evita on page 49, Christopher Anderson writes.
"At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was “sympathetic” to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. 
When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill “was outraged like everybody else,” said a Yale Law School classmate. 
But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a “freedom fighter” trying to free his people from their Israeli “oppressors.”
On page 50 of the same book, the author relates an experience that Hillary and her future husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973:
"It was during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a politically well-connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.
My daddy was half Jewish,” explained Bill’s friend. “One day when he came to visit, my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud that we were part Jewish. And I wasn’t about to say no to my daddy.”
To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused to get out of the car
“Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot and tired, but later he explained the real reason.
” According to the friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, “I’m sorry, but Hillary’s really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They’re friends of hers, and she just doesn’t feel right about the menorah.”
Hillary’s attitude did not change when she became first lady. 
In May 1998 Ms. Clinton became the first person ever who attached to any presidential administration ever to call for a Palestinian State. 
Think about that for a moment, nobody in the Carter administration made that demand neither did anyone in the Reagan or Bush 41 presidency. 
It took Hillary Clinton to “break the ice.” She told a youth conference on Middle East peace in Switzerland, that she supports the eventual creation of an independent Palestinian state. Her spokesperson, Marsha Berry told reporters: “These remarks are her own personal view.”
In November 1999, while on a purported State visit to the Middle East, she publicly appeared with Yasser Arafat’s wife Suha. Mrs. Arafat made a slanderous allegation:
“Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children.” Suha also accused Israel of contaminating much of the water sources used by Palestinians with “chemical materials” and poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.”
Mrs. Clinton sat by silently listening to a real-time translation, and gave the terrorist’s wife a hug and a kiss when she finished speaking.
Later, many hours after the event, and only after a media furor put her on the spot for what many view as a bit more than a mere political “boo boo Mrs. Clinton called on all sides to refrain from “inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations,” including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations.
Glossing over this repugnant affair, Hillary Clinton has yet to specifically contradict and denounce the monstrous lies uttered by Yasser Arafat’s wife in her presence. Only years later did she make feeble attempt at an excuse, the translator screwed up.
Before her tenure in the State Department, Bill and Hillary Clinton made mega dollars from their extensive involvement with Dubai. 
Besides being a leader in the movement to boycott Israel, Dubai is the “Hong Kong” of the terrorist world. And a major commerce and shipping point for the “business-side” of terrorism. 
Bill and Hilary are major friends of Dubai, to the point where the Clinton Foundation have established Dubai Study departments in universities in the US and London. They worked hard at granting legitimacy to this Jew-hating, terrorist supporting nation.
While she was running for President in 2007, San Francisco Examiner columnist P.J. Corkery, wrote that Clinton made $10 million a year from Yucaipa a Dubai firm. Ron Berkle, the owner of Yucaipa companies was a major fund-raiser for Bill and Hillary. And all this was before the recent questions about the Clinton Foundation donations.
The Clintons also had a connection to what was then, the worlds biggest exporter of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Royal Family donated $10,000,000 to the Clinton Library.
According to a 1993 New York Times article
Prince Turki bin Feisal was a college classmate of Bill’s at Georgetown University and (at the time of the article’s writing) was the head of the Saudi Arabian intelligence service. 
While he was still governor of Arkansas, it looks like Bill Clinton cashed in on that relationship, “work[ing] hard to secure a multimillion-dollar Saudi donation to a Middle Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas.” Due to the intervention of the Gulf War, the first installment of $3.5 million didn’t arrive until 1992, with another $20 million arriving after Bill Clinton’s first inauguration.
During her Senate years Ms. Clinton became a vocal supporter of Israel because she needed the Jewish vote. 
But one of her first actions after leaving the Senate to become Secretary of State was to ignore a previous deal with Israel and call for the end of the construction of new homes in existing settlement neighborhoods.
Clinton’s demand for a building freeze in existing settlement communities broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. Ms. Clinton said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. 
But Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States said Clinton’s contention is simply not true.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton first demanded the “settlement” freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. 
What she perceived as a minor concession (a “settlement” freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. For all intents and purposes Clinton was telling Israeli parents their married children could no longer live in their neighborhoods
This was a major error by the Clinton State Department and it was compounded by the inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and the constant public berating of the Jewish State by Clinton and Obama that as we know, continued even after she left the administration.
Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Hillary-created settlement issue. 
Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used the administration’s demands, to make a “settlement” freeze a precondition to further talks even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Hilary Clinton became Secretary of State.
In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten-month “settlement” freeze
It was approved by the cabinet and implemented on November 25, 2009 and was to run till September 25, 2010. 
Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians refused to join any talks the first 9+ months of the freeze; they did not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.
As the end of the construction halt approached, the US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. Based on their experience with Clinton denying the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing, as any oral deal with Clinton and the Obama administration was worth the paper on which is was printed on.
The written offer never came; 
the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. 
Instead Ms. Clinton was playing “Bait and Switch.” 
As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America’s guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source finally came forward saying that no such letter is on its way. 
The United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 
The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu’s recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.
In 2011 speaking at the at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the liberal Brookings Institute, Clinton tried to delegitimize Israel as a free nation by expressing concern for Israel’s social climate in the wake of limitations regarding female singing in the IDF and gender segregation on public transportation. Both were accommodations made to the Orthodox communities in Israel.
She referred to the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing; she said it reminded her of the situation in Iran. 
It did? Wow! 
In Iran the women would have been lashed or executed. In Israel they sang, but the people who felt it was against their religious beliefs were allowed to walk out. Most senior officers in the IDF supported the women’s right to sing. It’s called personal freedom.
Clinton also spoke of her shock that some Jerusalem buses had assigned separate seating areas for women. 
“It’s reminiscent of Rosa Parks,” she said, taking the typical progressive position that faith should not matter outside a place of worship. 
Clinton’s statement was part of the continued attempt by the Obama administration/Clinton State Department to de-legitimize the Israeli democracy and destroy one of the reasons for American support of Israel, the fact it is the only democracy in the Middle East.
And then there was her book “Hard Choices” which included some anti-Israel passages:
When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted” (pg 302).
She says nothing about terrorism, such as blowing up buses with school children, nothing about the fact that during the presidency of her husband, Yassir Arafat turned down a deal that would have given him about 98% of what he wanted (at least that’s what Bill Clinton said).
The sticking point would be Jerusalem. East Jerusalem had been captured along with the West bank in 1967, and Palestinians dreamed of one day establishing the capital of their future state there.” (pg 317).
Hillary’s statement is totally biased. 
Israel didn’t capture Jerusalem; Jordan did in 1948. 
Jews were the majority of the Jerusalem Population from 1844 through the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 when they were kicked out by Jordan.  
In fact, Muslims were the third largest religion in the city until about 1890.  The Palestinian’s want East Jerusalem as their capital because they don’t want Israel to have it.
Even after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE when the Romans punished the Jews for revolting by changing the name of their country from Judea to Palestinia (after the Philistines the ancient Jewish Enemy who no longer existed) and the name of the holy city from Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina (literally Capitoline Hill of the House of Aelius) ,  most of the world recognized the Holy Land and Jerusalem as Jewish. The truth of the matter is that even ancient Muslim writings recognized Jerusalem as a Jewish City.
“There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada, which started in September 2000. About a thousand Israelis were killed and eight thousand wounded in terrorist attacks from September 2000 to February 2005. Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period.” (pg 308).
Like many who are anti-Israel Hillary Clinton draws a false equivalency between the terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s attempts to defend herself.  
To maintain her ridiculous logic, the US should be chastised because more al Qaeda terrorists died than Americans were killed on 9/11/01.
The second intifada was a horrible period of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians, bus loads of children blown up, pizza places bombed, even a hotel where families were celebrating the Passover Seder in peace. There is no equivalence between the attacks and Israel’s attempts to defend herself.
“Because of higher birth rates among Palestinians and lower birth rates among Israelis, we were approaching the day when Palestinians would make up a majority of the combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and most of those Palestinians would be relegated to second-class citizenship and unable to vote.” (pg 312)
The page 312 quote was reminiscent of  John Kerry’s apartheid remark (which he backed away from).  What Israel’s deputy defense minister Danny Danon said about Kerry’s remark applies here also.
To suggest that the Jewish people would ever establish an apartheid regime was particularly hurtful.
Equally hurtful was the implied double standard. Although the administration has from time to time chided the Palestinians for “unhelpful” steps, those comments have not come close to the pointed criticism that has been leveled at our government. 
This policy of sharing the blame for the collapse of the peace talks, which from the outset was deemed by most independent experts as a long-shot attempt at best, has created the illusion of parity between the two sides. 
The secretary’s comments make it seem that Israel’s decisions to issue housing tenders, or to exhaustively debate whether to release convicted murders who would have very likely received the death penalty in U.S. courts, were just as damaging to the peace process as the “unity” pact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has now signed with Hamas, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist organization.
And then there are the Clinton emails. 
While most of the media coverage of the emails from her close friend Sidney Blumenthal are about his recommendations about Libya. 
Blumenthal sent many emails about Israel.  
Some of then consisted of forwarding articles from his anti-Semitic son, writer Max Blumenthal.  But others were recommendations of policy, generally one sided describing Israel as the oppressor. As reported by NRO:
Blumenthal sent dozens of e-mails advising Clinton on Israel in 2010. Before her March speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Blumenthal sent Clinton a breathless article from left-wing Israeli writer Uri Avnery accusing the Netanyahu government of “starting a rebellion” against the United States and defending interests that diverge from America’s. “I have to speak to AIPAC tomorrow,” Clinton responded. “How — and should I — use this [sic]?” Blumenthal promised to send another memo the next day.
In that memo, he instructed Clinton to “hold Bibi [Netanyahu]’s feet to the fire” on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 
“Perhaps most controversial,” he continued, would be for Clinton to “remind [AIPAC] in as subtle but also direct a way as you can that it does not have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion. Bibi is stage managing US Jewish organizations (and neocons, and the religious right, and whomever else he can muster) against the administration. AIPAC itself has become an organ of the Israeli right, specifically Likud.”
Interestingly if you asked Likud, they would claim that AIPAC favors Israel’s leftist parties.
On May 17, Blumenthal forwarded Clinton an article on the Israeli government’s decision to deny professor and Palestinian activist Noam Chomsky access to the West Bank.
 “Barring him for his political opinions has created a needless PR disaster,” he wrote. “The US should not be a passive onlooker. . . . The US effort on his behalf to gain entry should be part of the story.” Clinton forwarded the memo to staff with instructions to “pls print 3 copies.”
Chomsky has been fierce in his opposition to Israel’s right to defend herself from terrorism (some even say he is an anti-Semite), and had been officially banned from the country since 2010
In an e-mail from May 31 entitled “Several observations on the Israeli raid,” 
Blumenthal blames Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s family inferiority complex for his decision to launch a raid on the so-called “Gaza Flotilla,” a group of ships seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. 
“Bibi desperately seeks his father’s approbation and can never equal his dead brother,” Blumenthal wrote. 
He then hinted that the raid was deliberately orchestrated to kill the peace process and humiliate President Obama before his scheduled visit with the prime minister. 
Clinton forwarded the message to Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff at the State Department. “FYI and I told you so,” she wrote
Now Hillary Clinton is running for President. And she is campaigning on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as she did in the Senate, just as Obama did twice. 
As Secretary of State she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. 
It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period where she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State. 
Let’s hope the Republican who gets the nod will not let the former Secretary of State get away with hiding her true past.
Reposted with writer's permission from The Lid.
by Jeff Dunetz

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Hillary on the brink of collapse?

A passage from Ernest  Hemingway fits the moment. In “The Sun Also  Rises,” one character asks,  “How did you go bankrupt?” and another responds: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
The exchange captures Hillary Clinton’s red alert. She’s been going politically bankrupt for a long time, and now faces the prospect of sudden collapse.
If she’s got a winning defense, she better be quick about it. The ghosts of scandals past are gaining on her and time is not on her side.
The compelling claims that she and Bill Clinton sold favors while she was secretary of state for tens of millions of dollars for themselves and their foundation don’t need to meet the legal standard for bribery. She’s on political trial in a country where Clinton Fatigue alone could be a fatal verdict.
After 25 years of corner-cutting and dishonest behavior, accumulation is her enemy. Each day threatens to deliver the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It may already have happened and we’re just waiting for public opinion to catch up to the facts.
Meanwhile, her Houdini skills are being tested big time.
Hillary’s one big advantage is obvious — she’s the only serious contender for the Democratic nomination, and she beats most GOP opponents in head-to-head matchups. But everything else weighs against her, including momentum.
Start with the fact that the sizzling reports of corrupt deals are coming from major news organizations that reliably tilt left. With supposed friends making the case against her, the tired Clinton defense that the ­attacks are partisan hit jobs has been demolished.
And after digging up so much dirt, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Reuters, Bloomberg News and others are not likely to be content with stonewalling and half-truths, especially given her recent lies about missing e-mails. No wonder the Times editorial page called on her to provide “straightforward answers” to the accusations.
I don’t see how she can meet that test. The outlines of cozy relationships and key transactions are not in dispute. The only issue is whether the millions the Clintons got amount to a quid pro quo.
On the face of it, that’s certainly what they look like. There are several deals we know of, and more could emerge, that put money in the Clintons’ pockets while helping businesses, including some loathsome international figures, make a killing. It is preposterous to argue that it’s all a coincidence.
Her position was further undercut when the family foundation announced it would refile five years of tax returns. In one three-year period, it omitted tens of millions in foreign contributions, reporting “zero” to the IRS. In another two-year period, it admitted to over­reporting government grants by more than $100 million.
A foundation aide described the errors as “typographical,” which is bizarre — and par for the Clinton course. To concede the errors during the firestorm must mean keeping them quiet was an even greater liability.
Sooner rather than later, Hillary will have to meet the press — but what can she possibly say to alter the story lines?
If history is a guide, she’ll insist she did nothing wrong, offer ambiguous answers to specific questions, take offense at persistent reporters and end by playing the victim. She’ll follow up with a fund-raising pitch for money to keep “fighting for ­everyday Americans.”
To imagine that scenario is to realize it won’t fly, but I’m not sure what other options she has. She can’t tell the truth. It will sink her.
Nor can she credibly demand to be trusted, given her past. A recent Quinnipiac poll finds 54 percent of Americans already say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.
Swing-state surveys show similar lopsided findings and each new sordid revelation will deepen the trust deficit. At this point in her life, it would take a near-miracle to change people’s basic view of her.
Her best hope is that a missing ­ingredient remains missing — a Democrat who could take the nomination from her, the way Barack Obama did in 2008. None of those already in the race or committed to it — Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, even Joe Biden — comes close to measuring up.
The only possible rival who does is Elizabeth Warren, the fire-breathing senator from Massachusetts. Gender aside, she is everything Hillary isn’t — an anti-Wall Street conviction populist with a record to match her rhetoric.
A movement to draft her started before Hillary hit the fan, so Warren would begin with a built-in constituency. So far, though, she insists she’s not running.
Then again, that also could change suddenly.
by Michael Goodwin


Sunday, April 12, 2015

A Breakdown of every scandal swirling around Hillary

Expected to announce her presidential run today , Hillary Clinton has been attempting to re-brand herself: She’s Hillary 2.0, campaigning out of Brooklyn, a more accessible, relatable candidate who learned the lessons of her bruising, failed 2008 bid: From now on, no equivocating, no entitlement, no dubious financial dealings.
How much has changed?

The Shady Foundation

Modal Trigger
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton at an event for the family foundation.Photo: Reuters
Founded in 2001 as The Clinton Foundation and renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013, this ostensible philanthropic concern has become a liability.
As reported by the International Business Times last week, while serving as secretary of state, Clinton was lobbied by human-rights groups and union leaders to address the Colombian government’s abuse of striking oil workers, some of whom had been threatened at gunpoint by the military. Meanwhile, the oil company in question, Pacific Rubiales, was promising millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary’s State Department wound up publicly hailing Colombia’s commitment to human-rights reform — and that statement allowed the United States to continue funding the Colombian military.
Today, the founder of Pacific Rubiales is a board member of the Clinton Foundation.
And as Politico reported last week, a major phosphate company owned by the Moroccan government has just pledged at least $1 million to the foundation. In 2011, Clinton’s State Department assailed Morocco as a corrupt state guilty of “arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.” Women in Morocco are still subjugated by Islamic rule, yet last September, Hillary Clinton’s public stance on the government had changed.
“A vital hub for economic and cultural exchange,” she called it, one that was “in the midst of dramatic changes.”
The foundation had stopped accepting money from foreign governments in 2009, when Hillary became secretary of state. When she resigned in 2013, the foundation changed this policy, and it has since taken money from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

The Spotty Resume

Modal Trigger
Hillary sworn in as the new Democratic senator from New York in 2001 with Bill, Chelsea and former president Al Gore.Photo: Reuters
Hillary served as US senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, but her accomplishments are thin. No piece of legislation bears her name. Her tenure came to be defined in the 2008 presidential primaries by her vote for the war in Iraq — which Obama, who had opposed the war, used to chip away at her foreign-policy bona fides.
Her accomplishments as secretary of state are as unclear. She traveled to 112 countries, but again, she has nothing of consequence to her name: no peace treaty, no accord, no summit of consequence. Her defenders say that she helped restore America’s reputation in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; critics say she was too afraid to make a mistake that would affect her presidential run in 2016.
When asked in 2014 by Diane Sawyer to name her greatest achievement or “signature doctrine,” Hillary could not. “We haven’t had a doctrine since containment worked with the Soviet Union,” she said. “But we’ve had presidents who’ve made some tough calls and some hard choices, some of which have worked, and some of which have not.”

The Suspicious Finances

Modal Trigger
Photo: Shutterstock
Without ever breaking any laws, the Clintons have long appeared to be reaping ill-gotten gains. Right before Bill was elected governor of Arkansas, family friend James Blair, who also worked as a lawyer for Tyson Foods, helped her turn $12,000 worth of stock — Hillary only had $1,000 in her account at the time — into a near-immediate $100,000 profit. She did not disclose this until her husband’s second year in office.
It was during Bill’s first run for president, in 1992, that the Whitewater scandal surfaced. In the 1970s and ’80s, the Clintons and their friends Jim and Susan McDougal had invested in the Whitewater Development Corp.; it was alleged that Clinton, as governor, had pressured a local S&L to loan Susan McDougal $300,000 for real-estate investments with the company, and that transactions between an Arkansas bank and Bill Clinton had been concealed.
Neither Clinton was charged, though both McDougals and Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who served as governor after Clinton, were convicted of fraud.

The Spectacular Greed

Modal Trigger
The Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, New York.Photo: AP
Clinton will likely position herself as the champion of the middle class. Yet in 2014, it was revealed that Clinton, who charges a minimum of $300,000 per speech, also had an extensive list of demands.
Most anyone who hires Hillary to speak must also provide a private jet — a $39 million Gulfstream G450 or better — and put her up in presidential suites. Her standard agreement requires her presence for only 90 minutes, and 50 photos with 100 attendees — no more.
Hillary has defended her enormous speaking fees by saying she and Bill were “not only dead broke, but in debt” when they left the White House.
In 1999, Bill and Hillary bought their house in Chappaqua for $1.7 million, and in 2000 purchased a seven-bedroom in Washington, DC, for $2.85 million. Hillary’s Senate financial disclosure form that year listed their assets at $1.8 million.
In Clintonian fashion, Hillary backed off the “dead broke” statement — sort of. “I regret it. It was inartful,” she said. “But it was accurate.”

The Other Women

Modal Trigger
Monica Lewinsky and Bill circa 1998 in the White House.Photo: ZumaPress
One of the great lessons of 2008, say Hillary’s aides, is that she has learned to run toward history, not from it: Instead of downplaying her gender, she’ll amplify it, running not just as the potential first female president but as a proud feminist.
Modal Trigger
Juanita BroaddrickPhoto: NBC
If so, she may create a new problem for herself: How to explain her decades-long defense of her womanizing husband — a philanderer at best, a predator at worst? In 2014, the papers of Hillary’s late friend Diane Blair were made public; in them, Blair wrote that Hillary dismissed Monica Lewinksy, then a 22-year-old White House intern, as a “narcissistic loony-toon” and insisted that Bill had not abused his power.
As for Bill’s other women — including Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, who alleged sexual harassment, and Juanita Broad­drick, who accused him of rape — the Clintons often embarked on a “nuts and sluts” campaign, denigrating the accusers.
According to Carl Bernstein’s “A Woman in Charge,” Hillary called Bill’s longtime mistress Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash”; she also encouraged his team to get signed statements from all of Bill’s other women, swearing they’d never had sex with him.
Willey later said that Hillary spearheaded a “terror campaign” against her. “She is the war on women, as far as I’m concerned,” Willey said.

The Secret E-Mails

Modal Trigger
Photo: AP
In March, we learned that during her four-year stint as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton conducted all business — political, public, and private — solely through her personal e-mail account, on a server in her house.
When asked why she didn’t use two e-mails, one for official business and one for personal use, Hillary said: “I thought it would be easier to just carry one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two.”
Then an e-mail surfaced that was sent from her iPad, undermining that excuse.
In a press conference to address the controversy, Clinton answered questions with all-too-familiar arrogance, contempt and incredulity that her word should be questioned.
“She came off as defensive and artificially put-off,” one Democratic strategist told New York magazine.
“I’m a huge Hillary Clinton fan,” said another. “But after that press conference, I do have major concerns about her ability as a campaigner and to get elected.”