The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history

[Crafty_Dog]

 By
Peggy Noonan
May 7, 2015 5:48 p.m. ET
1035 COMMENTS

I have read the Peter Schweizer book “ Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” It is something. Because it is heavily researched and reported and soberly analyzed, it is a highly effective takedown. Because its tone is modest—Mr. Schweizer doesn’t pretend to more than he has, or take wild interpretive leaps—it is believable.

By the end I was certain of two things. A formal investigation, from Congress or the Justice Department, is needed to determine if Hillary Clinton’s State Department functioned, at least to some degree and in some cases, as a pay-for-play operation and whether the Clinton Foundation has functioned, at least in part, as a kind of high-class philanthropic slush fund.

I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?”

Mr. Schweizer announces upfront that he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior. There is no memo that says, “To all staff: If we deal this week with any issues regarding Country A, I want you to know country A just gave my husband $750,000 for a speech, so give them what they want.” Even if Mrs. Clinton hadn’t destroyed her emails, no such memo would be found. (Though patterns, dates and dynamics might be discerned.)

Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and unprecedented,” as high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been paid by nations or entities that had “matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk” when she was at State.

From 2001 through 2012 Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are lax.

How did it work? “Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by ‘close friends’ or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these countries.” Introductions were made, conversations had. “Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.”

Mr. Schweizer tells a story with national-security implications. Kazakhstan has rich uranium deposits, coveted by those who’d make or sell nuclear reactors or bombs. In 2006 Bill Clinton meets publicly and privately with Kazakhstan’s dictator, an unsavory character in need of respectability. Bill brings along a friend, a Canadian mining tycoon named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra wanted some mines. Then the deal was held up. A Kazakh official later said Sen. Clinton became involved. Mr. Giustra got what he wanted.

Soon after, he gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million. A year later Mr. Giustra’s company merged with a South African concern called Uranium One. Shareholders later wrote millions of dollars in checks to the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Giustra announced a commitment of $100 million to a joint venture, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.

It doesn’t end there. When Hillary was secretary of state, Russia moved for a bigger piece of the world uranium market. The Russians wanted to acquire Uranium One, which had significant holdings in the U.S. That meant the acquisition would require federal approval. Many had reservations: Would Russian control of so much U.S. uranium be in America’s interests? The State Department was among the agencies that had to sign off. Money from interested parties rolled into the foundation. The deal was approved. The result? “Half of projected American uranium production” was “transferred to a private company controlled” by Russia, which soon owned it outright.

What would a man like Vladimir Putin think when he finds out he can work the U.S. system like this? He’d think it deeply decadent. He’d think it weak. Is that why he laughs when we lecture him on morals?

Mr. Schweizer offers a tough view of the Clinton Foundation itself. It is not a “traditional charity,” in that there is a problem “delineating where the Clinton political machines and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins.” The causes it promotes—preventing obesity, alleviating AIDS suffering—are worthy, and it does some good, but mostly it functions as a middleman. The foundation’s website shows the Clintons holding sick children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan’s Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those who served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The Better Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards of accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.”

There’s more. Mrs. Clinton has yet to address any of it.

If the book is true—if it’s half-true—it is a dirty story.

It would be good if the public, the Democratic Party and the Washington political class would register some horror, or at least dismay.

I write on the eve of the 70th anniversary of V-E Day, May 8, 1945. America had just saved the world. The leaders of the world respected us—a great people led by tough men. What do they think now? Scary to think, isn’t it?



 

[Crafty_Dog]

The heavyset 60-year-old man who walked with a cane seemed an unlikely speaker at the glamorous launch party for a cosmetics company held in Santa Monica, Calif., in March.

But Tony Rodham appeared at ease among the special guests and well-heeled investors, offering them encouragement as well as an invitation.

“If there’s anything I can ever do for any of you, let me know,” Mr. Rodham said. “I’ll be more than happy to do it.”

A promotional video of the party that the cosmetics company later released identified the speaker as “the youngest brother of former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,” a relationship that has been Mr. Rodham’s calling card since the days of the Clinton White House.


On and off for two decades, the affable Mr. Rodham has tried to use his connections with his sister and his brother-in-law, former President Bill Clinton, to further a business career that has seen more failures than successes. The connections to the Clintons have given Mr. Rodham, a self-described “facilitator,” a unique appeal and a range of opportunities, like addressing Chinese investor conferences and joining an advisory board of a company seeking permission to mine for gold in Haiti.

But his business dealings have often invited public scrutiny and uncomfortable questions for the Clintons as Mr. Rodham has cycled through a variety of ventures, leveraging his ties to them and sometimes directly seeking their help.

When Mr. Clinton worked as a co-chairman of Haiti’s earthquake recovery commission, Mr. Rodham and his partners sought a $22 million deal to rebuild homes in the country. In court proceedings three years ago in an unrelated lawsuit, Mr. Rodham explained how “a guy in Haiti” had “donated” 10,000 acres of land to him and described how he had leaned on Mr. Clinton to get the rebuilding project funded amid bureaucratic delays.

“I deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials,” Mr. Rodham said, according to a transcript of his testimony. “I hound my brother-in-law, because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.

“And he keeps telling me, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.’ Well, tomorrow hasn’t come yet.”

Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project never did happen. The Clinton Foundation said in a statement that it was not aware of Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project and had no involvement in it. Mr. Clinton’s office said he had not been involved in any of Mr. Rodham’s pursuits in Haiti.

But Mr. Rodham was able to prevail on the former president for help in other ways.

When Mr. Rodham was short on cash in 2010, Mr. Clinton helped get him a job for $72,000 a year raising investments in GreenTech Automotive, an electric car company then owned by Terry McAuliffe, an old friend of Mr. Clinton’s and now the governor of Virginia.

“I was complaining to my brother-in-law I didn’t have any money. And he asked McAuliffe to give me a job,” Mr. Rodham said during the court proceedings, which were the result of a lawsuit over unpaid legal bills filed by his lawyer in a child support case.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

A brother down on his luck seeking help from more successful siblings is a familiar story, and presidents and their families have hardly been immune from that sometimes uncomfortable situation. For the Clintons, Tony Rodham has not been the only source of embarrassment.

Mrs. Clinton’s other brother, Hugh Rodham, stumbled through an unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in Florida during Mr. Clinton’s first term. Roger Clinton, the former president’s brother, served a year in federal prison on a cocaine distribution charge. And all three were involved in lobbying Mr. Clinton for pardons for their associates as he left office, prompting a congressional inquiry.

“They’re all colorful,” Rahm Emanuel, a former Clinton aide who later became mayor of Chicago, said in an interview in 2001. “They’re all living large.”

As Mrs. Clinton began her 2016 campaign for the presidency, Hugh Rodham and Roger Clinton had faded from public view, but Tony Rodham emerged as a controversial figure. A government investigation in March found that GreenTech, which sought green cards for its Chinese investors through an American government program, had received special treatment in the handling of its visa applications. The report described instances when Mr. McAuliffe and Mr. Rodham contacted an official from the Department of Homeland Security to complain about the pace of the visa process.

Mr. Rodham’s unsuccessful pursuit of housing contracts in Haiti, which has not previously been reported, raised new questions.

As Mrs. Clinton campaigns, she speaks fondly of her brothers. At a stop in Iowa, she recalled them working together at her father’s drapery business. Her official campaign biography prominently mentions them.

“She loves her family more than anything,” said Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “Her brothers have always been there for her, and she will always be there for them. Each, though, have their own lives, their own jobs, their own ups and downs.”
Continue reading the main story

    Poll Shows Lack of Excitement Over Presidential Hopefuls 09:00 AM ET
    Today in Politics: Trade Fight Intensifies as Vote Looms 06:51 AM ET
    Rand Paul Plays Down Comments on Military Exercise After Mockery 3:31 PM ET

As the youngest of three children, Tony Rodham has lived in the shadow of his sister. He never finished college, and he worked at a variety of jobs — as a prison guard, private detective and at the Democratic National Committee — until after the Clintons were in the White House, when he became a consultant and deal broker. He was once married to Nicole Boxer, the daughter of Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

He lives with his second wife, Megan, and two young children in a large house on a hill in Vienna, Va., a suburb of Washington. He declined to speak to a reporter who went to his door one afternoon in April, and he did not respond to other messages seeking comment for this article.

But in a statement from Mr. Rodham passed on by the Clinton campaign, he said that he wanted to protect his family’s privacy and that he would not engage in disputing claims about him, which he said he considered to be political attacks.

His wife said the family was excited about Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for president.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

“The kids love their Aunt Hillary,” she said. “We are supportive, and we are excited.”

Mr. Rodham described his dire financial situation during the court proceedings in 2012. As a result of a series of failed business deals — including some in oil and gas, water, housing, tutoring and pharmaceuticals — he said he had not made a mortgage payment in 10 months and was fighting home foreclosure.

The Clintons, he said, had been generous, even paying for his son’s schooling, but they were not going to give him more money. “Hillary and Bill are done,” he said. “I mean, look at what they’ve done for me. They’ve given me money all the time.”

Mr. Clinton’s willingness to assist in getting him work with Mr. McAuliffe was helpful, Mr. Rodham said, but at $6,000 a month, it was not enough. “It’s kind of like the job he got me a long time ago when I worked in the prison,” he said.

Even more important, according to Mr. Rodham, was what he said was going to be Mr. Clinton’s help on his Haiti rebuilding project. That project came about when Sheldon Drobny, an old friend, contacted Mr. Rodham about making a connection for a Chicago-area contractor, who wanted to become involved in building houses in Haiti.

“We were trying to help. Period,” Mr. Drobny, a co-founder of Air America Radio, the former liberal talk network, said in a phone interview. He called the effort “humanitarian.”

Mr. Drobny said he had connected with Mr. Rodham because of what he believed were his ties to the Clinton Foundation, which was playing a central role in the rebuilding efforts. Ultimately, he said, nothing happened “because the Haiti government was not cooperative.”

The Clinton Foundation said in its statement that aside from supporting a housing exposition in Haiti, it had not been directly involved with any housing projects. The foundation also said Mr. Rodham’s project had not been among the more than 300 submitted for consideration at the expo.

Mr. Rodham projected that he could make $1 million on the Haiti deal if it came to pass — enough money, he said in his court testimony, to take his family to Disney World and cover his debts, including his legal bills and his long overdue federal taxes.

Mr. Rodham eventually settled his bill with his former lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo M. Carlberg. Ms. Carlberg said in a phone interview that, despite her lawsuit, she did not have a negative view of Mr. Rodham. “I found a lot of good in Tony,” she said.

He is still sought after for deals and personal appearances.

That was the case in March when Mr. Rodham attended the celebration of Wynn Beauty & Health in Santa Monica, which included a performance from an “American Idol” contestant. In addition to appearing in the promotional video, Mr. Rodham posed for at least a dozen photos.

But after a reporter contacted Wynn Beauty & Health, Mr. Rodham was removed from the video and photos of him disappeared from the company’s Facebook page. In an email, the company said that Mr. Rodham was not involved in the business and that he had appeared at the celebration only as a longtime friend offering congratulations.

[DougMacG]

Has everyone seen the Hillary Clinton Air Fresheners that are hung out as signs to greet her?

These apparently help with the stench of corruption that accompany her visits.

http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/05/Hillary-LA-4-copy.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=480%2C600

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/a-warm-welcome-for-hillary-in-la.php
___________________________________________

Hillary has taken no questions from the press in 21 days?  I am not trying escape my bet loss with ccp but this is hardly what we used to call running for President.

[G M]

She is waiting for the various scandals to age out so she can deflect questions about them as old news.

[Crafty_Dog]

The banks are too big to fail.  Hillary is too big to jail.

[DougMacG]

May I please recommend that anyone/everyone that would like to be informed on this subject take the time and listen to this commercial-free radio-like interview.  

If a liberal tells you that there's nothing there, nothing wrong, not a shred of evidence as they are trained to say, you should be able to refute that with concise facts and make the case that this nothing short of corruption.

For the commodities scandal, the soundbite I took from it is that mathematically there is a one in 34 trillion chance her gains happened on her own as she alleged.  What is the simplest, most persuasive story within Clinton Cash that demonstrates this to be influence peddling at the highest level?

THE POWER LINE SHOW, EPISODE 16: CLINTON CASH, WITH PETER SCHWEIZER

Podcast is down the page at this link:  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/the-power-line-show-episode-16-clinton-cash-with-peter-schweizer-2.php

https://ricochet.com/podcasts/the-stories-inside-clinton-cash/
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Powerline_Ep15.mp3

Powerline's John Hinderaker starts the interview saying:  "I read Clinton Cash cover to cover this afternoon and my conclusion is that the Clintons are a criminal syndicate."

Schweitzer tells how he reached out to journalists at the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News to follow his trail, verify his facts and help bring this story out with the release of this book.

The first 36 minutes are the interview and the rest is other discussion.

[Crafty_Dog]

Listening to it now; I've posted it on my FB page.

[G M]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/hillary-wants-the-power-to-ban-books-and-movies-that-criticize-her.php

Beneath her.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

[Crafty_Dog]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/#.VVKoBUZWlFo.facebook

 

[DougMacG]

(From Benghazi)

A smoking gun about what we already know happened.

Nonetheless 45% of the country will ignore this:  So she lied.   So what.........  they all do.......  just right wing loons making a stink over a non scandal.......
                  we just need to know the real Hillary.....  what a really nice person she is.......
              yadda yadda.
Two decades of Democrats ignoring sliminess.   Only worse now.   Not better.   

You're about right with that 45% number, about the number who allegedly still approve of Obama now despite all that has happened.  Still, they have to hold their nose with that support.  General polls don't tell is how many will turn out.  Obama won at the level of his poll numbers with magical (or criminal) turnout.  How excited are young people about HRC, running on a platform of more of the same, while home ownership hits a quarter century low and college grads live unemployed in their parents' home.  How excited are blacks and other minorities to see an old, white, privileged woman win the Presidency?

The only excitement comes from a shot at getting some of her big campaign money to come your way.  That, too, only goes to the powerful and connected.

What they have left is the usual fear factor - the scary Republicans are going to take away all your free stuff.  That message has been losing lately in 70% of the state legislative chambers.

The table is set for a Republican with charisma and skill to inspire people to do better than this.

[DougMacG]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Clinton-foundation-donors-State

181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied the State Department WHEN HILLARY RAN THE PLACE.

Liberal source.  Read the list.

"Not a shred of evidence"

[Crafty_Dog]

Why Was The Clinton Foundation Paying Sidney Blumenthal While Hillary Was Secretary Of State?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 19, 2015
Foundation Claims Hillary Hitman Helped Plan "Commemorative Events"
The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton received more than thirty detailed "intelligence briefings" from long-time Clinton lieutenant Sidney Blumenthal about Libya and Syria while she was Secretary of State. The memos did not disclose Blumenthal's business ties to parties in Libya.

While a casual reader might have laughed at them, Hillary circulated the memos to her top staff and even asked for comments.

And, at the same time that he was churning out the "intelligence reports" to Hillary, Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation. For what?

A Clinton Foundation spokesman told the Times that "Blumenthal would help with research, "message guidance" and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials."

Oh, right, Sidney was an event planner? Are they kidding? What did he do -- look for the caterers and decide on the font size for the invitations? And, by the way, the only "commemorative event" on the Foundation schedule was the "10th Anniversary of the Clinton Library" which was celebrated on November 14, 2014. So it's doubtful that he was working on the hors d'oeuvres three years earlier. No, he was doing something else.

As for research, the Clinton Foundation employs thousands of people who are familiar with their programs and really didn't need Sidney's talents. His forte is negative research, character assassination, hit jobs to destroy any Clinton opponents.

As for "message guidance," whose message are we talking about here? Hillary's or the Foundation's?

So what was he doing for the Foundation? Did Hillary use the "charitable" Clinton Foundation to pay for advice to her? Political advice? And did she pay Sidney for the "intelligence reports" through the Foundation?

And maybe for advice on how to finesse the Benghazi mess after she left the State Department?

What's going on here?

Blumenthal has always been one of Hillary's closest confidants feeding her innate paranoia. It was Sidney who originated Hillary's favorite phrase "the vast right wing conspiracy." During the impeachment process he was also the source of a false media campaign (at Hillary's behest) accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a "stalker" of an innocent President who was only trying to "minister" to her. That earned him big points with Hillary.

Sidney is no foreign policy expert. He has absolutely no experience in that realm. And, the White House had refused to allow Hillary to hire him.

So why did Hillary get the Foundation to hire Blumenthal? Was she using the Foundation as her secret political arm - putting Blumenthal on the payroll to advise her on her presidential campaign and on how to spin Benghazi? Was that part of a pattern?

Remember that Huma Abedin was also paid by the Foundation while she worked at the State Department and at Teneo. Was anyone else?

With Hillary in hiding and the Foundation in panic mode, we're not likely to see answers anytime soon.

[Crafty_Dog]

second post

[Crafty_Dog]

Blame Hillary For Email Delay
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 19, 2015
Hillary Deliberately Caused Delay Of Email Release By Submitting Only Paper Copies
Hillary Clinton ended her 37-day boycott of the press today when she spent a few minutes claiming she wants her emails released by the State Department ASAP.

But here's the thing: the only reason that there's been such a long delay is that Hillary deliberately delivered the 550,000 emails in hard copies, instead of in electronic files.

Why does that make a difference?

Because that meant every single one of the 550,000 pages has to be manually scanned. And, to make it even harder, Hillary made sure that some of the documents were copies on both sides. That took 5 weeks of 12 people working full time to complete.

And Hillary knew that would create just one more obstacle and cause an enormous delay.

She also knew that the paper files couldn't be searched like electronic files. And she didn't want to make it easy to connect the dots.

So her fervent wish for the release of the documents is as phone as her claims that she did nothing wrong when she set up her home-brew server and use it for her official State Department documents.

She thinks we are all stupid and that we don't get it. But we do: Hillary set up her home server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, she did just that, and once caught, she wiped her server clean and got rid of everything she didn't want us to see.

We get it Hillary.
The 2016 Buzz -- All The Latest News on the Candidates and Issues. 

Click Here to view the 2016 Buzz!

[DougMacG]

"... the only reason that there's been such a long delay is that Hillary deliberately delivered the 550,000 emails in hard copies, instead of in electronic ... She knew that the paper files couldn't be searched like electronic files. ...
She thinks we are all stupid and that we don't get it. But we do: Hillary set up her home server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, she did just that, and once caught, she wiped her server clean and got rid of everything she didn't want us to see."
[/quote]

Too bad to live in a world where Dick Morris can make this most obvious observation that none of the so-called mainstream networks or newspapers can. 

Rush L had a long montage of msm reporting on how Hillary finally answered questions.

No she didn't.

[ccp]

"Rush L had a long montage of msm reporting on how Hillary finally answered questions"

I heard part of it too.

She spoke and her supporters in the media had a crumb with which they could say,  "see she answered all questions" without adding now we can move on with a sigh of relief.

She's their girl.   That's it.   Nothing else will matter.   Interesting the Mika on Morning Joe said that Republicans will not vote for a less than conservative candidate while liberals will vote for one who (pretends) to be too far to the right.

While some Repubs will stay home as I might the libs will vote for their gal no matter what.

Some of the Dems interviewed state how the "alleged" email or Benghazi scandal sort of bothers them there are simply more important things going on.   First they absolutely hate to criticize her for any reason then rationalize even in the face of the obvious that it just isn't important enough.   It is always the big government crowd too.

[Crafty_Dog]

The State Department on Friday published about 848 of the some 55,000 pages of emails that Hillary Clinton personally decided were relevant before erasing the rest of her private server. Yet even this twice cherry-picked dossier—with a focus on the 2011-2012 Libya crisis—is revealing about the kind of operation she was running at Foggy Bottom. All that’s missing is the shoe phone from the “Get Smart” spy farce.
Opinion Journal Video
Assistant Editorial Page Editor James Freeman on the unanswered questions about the Clinton Foundation and the former President’s speaking fees. Photo credit: Getty Images.

In the pre-Memorial Day weekend news dump, long-time Clinton plumber Sidney Blumenthal plays Maxwell Smart, passing along intel on Benghazi from half a world away. Secret Agent Blumenthal apparently derived this wisdom from his new business associates who were attempting to win contracts from Libyan nationals. Mrs. Clinton often circulates the memos among her top diplomats with comments like “useful insight” and “very interesting,” and they would often then push them down the chain of command, without identifying the source.

Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State, for heaven’s sake, one of the five most powerful national security positions in the U.S. government. She had the entire State Department intelligence division at her disposal, known as the Bureau of Intelligence and Research or INR, and presumably had access to the 16 other U.S. agencies that make up the intelligence community.

Yet she’s consuming and taking seriously information from an “analyst” who knows nothing about the subject. Mr. Blumenthal’s expertise is in political wet work and monetizing his connections to the Clintons. The imprimatur that Mrs. Clinton’s office put on Mr. Blumenthal’s outside improv offered him a way to influence policy even after the Obama White House had barred Mrs. Clinton from formally hiring him.

Somehow we doubt the distinguished likes of Dean Acheson or George Shultz were taking the measure of Moscow on the counsel of amateur stringers dabbling in Kremlinology and sending hearsay over the transom.

Mrs. Clinton now wants to be an American President. Will we have Sid set up his own parallel intelligence service from Blair House? What other Clinton henchmen will be reprising their roles from the 1990s, only this time with a national-security portfolio?

Mr. Blumenthal even does a cameo on the terrorist assaults on the Benghazi diplomatic mission and CIA annex that killed four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. On Sept. 12, 2012, Mr. Blumenthal reports to Mrs. Clinton—based on “Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services”—that the attack was merely a mob inspired by what they viewed as a “sacrilegious internet video.”

The Administration went with that narrative, with National Security Adviser Susan Rice repeatedly claiming that “it was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response.” The goal was to blame YouTube, not the Administration’s foreign policy failures.

Yet the next day, citing “sensitive sources,” Mr. Blumenthal recanted and explained that the attack had been orchestrated by al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. “We should get this around asap,” Mrs. Clinton told Jake Sullivan, who did work at State. No wonder she couldn’t get her Benghazi story straight for so long.

Notably, and intriguingly, there are also selective omissions in the State disclosures that do not appear in the batch of emails obtained by the New York Times, about a third of the Libya trove. On April 8, 2011, for example, Mrs. Clinton (“hrod17@clintonemail.com”) suggests that “The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.” This line was redacted by State.

Mrs. Clinton also seems to have had sensitive, if not classified, information on her email like the location and travel schedules of U.S. security officials. They could have been compromised if foreign enemies hacked her unsecured personal email account, which is why there are supposed to be protocols to protect high-level communications.

The larger question isn’t Mr. Blumenthal’s faux life of danger. It’s why a potential Commander in Chief invested so much trust in such a figure. The Southern Gothic novel that is Clinton family political history—with its melodrama, betrayals and paranoia—has left them dependent on insular loyalists like Mr. Blumenthal whose opinions are never second-guessed. Voters should know they’d not only be electing Hillary, and Bill, and Chelsea, but this entire menagerie.
Popular on WSJ

    Want Great Longevity and Health? It Takes a Village
    Want Great Longevity and Health? It Takes a Village
    The Trigger-Happy Generation
    Opinion: The Trigger-Happy Generation
    Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage
    Opinion: Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage
    U.S. Strategy Against Islamic State Under Scrutiny
    U.S. Strategy Against Islamic State Under Scrutiny
    School’s Out Forever
    School’s Out Forever

Videos

    [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150522/052215sdemails/052215sdemails_167x94.jpg]
    Clinton's Emails: Why Releasing Them All Takes So Long
    [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150522/052215gradspeech/052215gradspeech_167x94.jpg]
    The Funniest Commencement Speeches of 2015
    [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150522/052215ukabuse/052215ukabuse_167x94.jpg]
    Whistleblower's Account of Mass Child Abuse in England
    [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150521/052115nysubway/052115nysubway_167x94.jpg]
    Update From Underground: NYC's Second Avenue Subway
    [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150521/052115palmyraunesco/052115palmyraunesco_167x94.jpg]
    Islamic State Gains Strategic and Cultural Treasure

Set your profile to public to comment
There are 198 comments.
 

All comments will display your real name. Read our commenting rules.
NewestOldestReader Recommended
Foster Nickerson
Foster Nickerson 15 minutes ago

What these emails demonstrate is that Madam Secretary knew that her employes were in an exposed and dangerous place, refused their request for protection and then attempted to coverup her malfeasance / misfeasance, when they were attacked and overrun.
Flag ButtonShare
TOM PAINTER
TOM PAINTER 28 minutes ago

Billary and Blumenthal;  one hand washing the other, on the tax payers dime.
Flag ButtonShare
1
David Rosenberg
David Rosenberg 52 minutes ago

Sounds to me that we would  be  better off if more folks had listened to his intelligence.
Flag ButtonShare

[DougMacG]

Old old email joke updated slightly.

Dear Abby,

My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning, and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows that the cheats on me. It is so humiliating.

Also, since he lost his job more than 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot the bull with his buddies, while I work to pay the bills.

Ever since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even pretend to like me, even hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?

Clueless in New York


Dear Clueless in New York, Grow up and dump him. Good grief woman! You don't need him anymore! You're running for President of the United States. Act like one.

Abby

[DougMacG]

When supporters say they can't think of an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, they are missing an obvious one.  The disaster in Libya is her accomplishment.

HILLARY’S REAL BENGHAZI PROBLEM    (John Hinderaker, Powerline)
Yesterday the State Department released a handful of Hillary Clinton’s emails relating to Benghazi. They have been selected at least twice for release to the public, once by Hillary’s minions and once by the Department, so on one expected any bombshells. Nevertheless, I find them surprisingly interesting. This post addresses what I think is the most important point. I will cover a few smaller matters in a future post. This batch of emails, in their entirety, are at the bottom of this post, so you can read them for yourself.

In my opinion, Hillary’s biggest problem isn’t Benghazi per se, it is the broader issue of Libya. Why were Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans murdered? Because by September 2012, Libya was a terrorist playground. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Libya has become a failed state, a 21st century source of boat people, as refugees from ubiquitous violence stream across the Mediterranean. Libya is now a haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups; it was on the Libyan coast that ISIS beheaded 30 Christians. Some of the “refugees” now making their way into Europe are, in fact, ISIS agents. In short, Libya is a disaster.

Whose disaster? Hillary Clinton’s. It was Hillary who, more than anyone else, pushed to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi. Why? No compelling reason. Qaddafi had been tame ever since the Iraq war, which he interpreted as a threat to his rule. Almost incredibly, Clinton and her cohorts in NATO overthrew Qaddafi (who was subsequently murdered by a mob) without having a plan for what would come next.

Who says Hillary Clinton is responsible for the Libya fiasco? She does. In fact, at one point she was poised to claim Libya as the notable accomplishment of her term as Secretary of State. In August 2011, Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s deputy chief of staff, wrote an email in which he summarized “Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya.” He sent to it henchwoman Cheryl Mills and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who passed it on to Hillary. Sullivan’s email begins:

this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S’ [Secretary Clinton's] leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s libya policy from start to finish. let me know what you think.

The email continues, with bold print in the original:

Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya

HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings–as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

Sullivan goes on to itemize, day by day, how Clinton drove the Libya policy not just in the U.S., but in NATO as well. This is a screen shot of the first page of the email; it goes on and on thereafter, showing how Hillary “owned” and was “the public face of,” our Libya policy, “from start to finish.” Click to enlarge:

Screen Shot
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/05/Screen-Shot-2015-05-23-at-11.32.04-AM.png?zoom=1.5&resize=580%2C459

Hillary’s problem is not primarily the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, outrageous as those murders were. Rather, her real problem is that she bears primary responsibility for a policy that was not just a failure, but a disaster. Further, it was a policy that, as you can see from Sullivan’s email, she intended to be a crown jewel of her years as Secretary of State and, no doubt, a chief credential in her run for the presidency. Instead, it blew up in her face–worse, in ours–like an exploding cigar.

The Benghazi murders are of course important. But it is critical to recognize that they resulted not just from a lack of adequate security or other misjudgments that may have been made at the time. Rather, the fact that terrorists were largely in control of Benghazi by September 2012 was the direct result of Hillary’s bad judgment in leading the overthrow of Qaddafi while having no plan for what would come after, and no ability to influence events on the ground. It is that poor judgment that disqualifies her as a candidate for the presidency.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/hillarys-real-benghazi-problem.php
https://www.scribd.com/doc/266359920/266273670-Hillary-Clinton-s-Libya-Emails

[Crafty_Dog]

BTW, I'm needing a good definitive description of:

a) What happened the night Vince Foster died, especially with regard to Hillary removing papers from his office;

b) the billing issues with Hillary's law firm, including Webster Hubbell taking the fall and getting a $700k contract from the Riady family of Indonesia (and front for the Red Chinese) upon his release from prison, and the billing papers that mysteriously showed up in Hillary's quarters in the White House.

[DougMacG]

BTW, I'm needing a good definitive description of:
a) What happened the night Vince Foster died, especially with regard to Hillary removing papers from his office;
b) the billing issues with Hillary's law firm, including Webster Hubbell taking the fall and getting a $700k contract from the Riady family of Indonesia (and front for the Red Chinese) upon his release from prison, and the billing papers that mysteriously showed up in Hillary's quarters in the White House.

Isn't it perfectly normal to ransack a lawyer's office after a suicide, before the police arrive?

"In an account directly at odds with the White House, a Secret Service officer testified Wednesday that he saw Hillary Rodham Clinton's top aide leave Vincent Foster's office area with a stack of documents the night of Foster's death. The aide denied doing so. Margaret Williams, the first lady's chief of staff, "was carrying, in her arms and her hands, what I would describe as file folders," Secret Service officer Henry P. O'Neill told the Senate Whitewater Committee. "She walked past me . . . and started to enter her office, and she had to brace the folders on her arms against a cabinet," he said. "She came out a few moments later and locked her office." "I took nothing from Vince's office," Williams insisted in an opening statement shortly before the panel took a lunch break."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-07-26/news/9507270254_1_henry-p-o-neill-vincent-foster-aide

Other accounts/sources:
The Night Foster Died
http://www.newsweek.com/night-foster-died-184870

The Special Committee's Whitewater Report
FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WW/white6.html


The Riadys' Persistent Pursuit of Influence
By Sharon LaFraniere, John Pomfret and Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 27, 1997; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf052797.htm
The Riadys also promoted Hubbell at Suharto's presidential palace as someone "influential with Bill Clinton," said another Indonesian official. After Hubbell resigned from the Justice Department amid allegations of fraud, James Riady arranged for him to tour Indonesia.
...
James Riady masterminded a giving campaign of Lippo executives to the Democratic Party, beginning in 1988. Federal Election Commission records indicate Riady, Lippo executives and business executives contributed more than $700,000 to the Democratic National Committee since 1991.

Hubbell Got $700,000 for Little or No Work, House Probe Shows
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/hubbell042498.htm


See if your Clinton sympathizing friends can explain all of THIS:

http://prorev.com/connex.htm

[DougMacG]

"where the country is only benefiting from the scrappy fighters on the Republican side...Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy."

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article21640572.html#storylink=cpy

[DougMacG]

From Friday's slow news day news dump:

HRC:  "all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately."

   - In fact, none of it was, except maybe wedding planning etc.  Even that should have had better security.

As early as April 2011, Clinton was forwarded a message sent to her staff that the situation in the country had worsened to the point "where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi," The email was marked "Importance: High."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/24/sliver_of_clinton_emails_hint_at_lingering_political_trouble_126712.html

Enemies and Snowden type hackers all knew or could have known the whereabouts of our soon to be murdered Ambassador along with his admitted lack of security.

There ought to be a department or administration rule against exposing that.

[Crafty_Dog]

Doug:

Thank your for running down the info which I requested.

[DougMacG]

Doug:
Thank your for running down the info which I requested.

You're welcome.  Look forward to learning what comes from it.  Sounds like you may be in a discussion where someone denies suspicious behavior by the Clintons...

Not only was it Hillary's assistant seen by a credible Secret Service source with the files before the police could seal it off, but we know she received an urgent, off-hours communication from Hillary immediately preceding that act.

Regarding Riady and Hubbell, the trading of money for favors with the Clintons is so common, persistent and well-known that each instance of it doesn't seem newsworthy.  Others like the VA Governor and NJ Senator face prosecution for less.

The patterns in these are like those in the commodities trades where there is a 1 in 34 trillion chance that what we were told by the Clintons is true, that these events happened just the way they did without wrongdoing.

Maybe Maggie Williams already had an armload of files before she entered the dead man's office and just wanted to turn his light off when she was the first one there to know he wasn't coming back that night.  Maybe a maid brought the missing Whitewater file from Vince Foster's office to the closet of the Clinton living quarters - thinking that legal documents in folders were actually Hillary's shoes.  And maybe Hillary's page sent to Williams immediately upon learning of her close friend's death was regarding the next day's lunch plans.  There are so many innocent explanations; people will believe what they will.

[DougMacG]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/more-on-hillarys-benghazi-emails.php

Commentary with images of actual emails.  From the start it was presetned to her as an "attack by mortar fire"

Hinderaker:  "Demonstrators and protesters don't use mortars."

Interesting progression on the word spontaneous.  They are pleased that Susan Rice has advanced "our view" and then frantic when that story  failed to find out whether Hillary had expressly said that.  Odd that NPR is their source that THERE WAS NO PROTEST IN BENGHAZI.  Does she not have better intel than that?

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Jolt&utm_campaign=Jolt05272015

http://thehill.com/regulation/international/243089-hillary-clinton-facing-criticism-over-international-weapons-deals



========================

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/26/shock-report-the-clintons-operated-a-shell-company-to-funnel-payments-to-bill-clinton/

[DougMacG]

In 2003, Restrictionist Hillary told conservative radio host John Grambling that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants” and that “we’ve got to do more at our borders.”

In 2006, while serving in the Senate, Restrictionist Hillary told the New York Daily News that she supported more fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border because “a country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations.” That same year, she voted for the Secure Fence Act, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing.

In 2008, during a presidential debate with Barack Obama, Restrictionist Hillary tried to woo organized labor by blaming lost jobs on “employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages.” She mentioned an African-American man who had told her: “I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation.”

During that debate, Clinton also said that she didn’t agree with “deporting people, rounding them up.” Yet, while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Restrictionist Hillary was part of an administration that turned that into an art form.

And in 2014, as more than 60,000 refugees from Central America – most of them unaccompanied children – crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, Restrictionist Hillary said coldly during a CNN town hall that the kids “should be sent back” because “we have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
...
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/24/ruben-navarrette-on-immigration-hillary-vs-hillary/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-hit-with-racketeering-lawsuit/article/2565069?utm_campaign=Fox%20News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed

[Crafty_Dog]

second post

Nepotism Queen Chelsea Doesn't See Jobs As Challenge For Young
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 27, 2015

Nepotism Princess Chelsea Clinton To Write Book For Young People On Most Important Issues; No Mention Of Jobs And Student Loans Debt
Chelsea Clinton is writing a book to teach young people about the biggest challenges in the world today -- as she sees it. Those include "climate change, gender equality, and non-communicable diseases."

Hasn't even one of Chelsea's many hard-working handlers ever mentioned to her that perhaps the most important challenge for young people today is FINDING A JOB! And, right after that, PAYING BACK STUDENT LOANS! Those challenges don't seem to be on Chelsea's radar. Like the rest of her family, she lives in a bubble and has no clue about what's going on in the real world.

Does she really think that "non-communicable diseases" is what's on young people's list of the most important challenges in their life?

It's obvious that Chelsea Clinton has no understanding about what a real challenge is. How about desperately trying to find a job -- any kind of job -- to pay for basics like food and housing and student loans? Has she not even read about the millions of college graduates who cannot find work after working so hard to build an economically secure life? Is she unaware of the unemployment rate among young people that is only slightly down from a high of 15%? Or the incomprehensible amount of student debt? Anyone ever bring that issue up at any of the lavish parties of the Clinton Foundation?

Seems not. Instead, Chelsea's focus is on the issues constantly bantered about at the Clinton Global Initiative -- the buzz words that she repeats over and over -- gender equality, climate change, same-sex marriage. Oh, and then there's her big concern about elephant poaching. Those are the things that are important to Chelsea. Not jobs and economic security for those who should be the newest members of our work force.

It's not surprising. Unlike the rest of the world, Chelsea has never had to look for a job. They've all been handed to her because of her family name and not because of any special -- or even not so special -- talents. She's the Princess of Nepotism. One of her mother's biggest donors hired her at Avenue Capital, where she didn't exactly wow the financial community. She left after three years, once she realized that she just "couldn't ... care about money."

How touching and insightful. No need to care about money when it's just there for you. No need to worry about student loans when you have degrees from Stanford, Colombia, and Oxford (2) and you didn't need any student loans. No need to worry about money when your parents help your husband's career and their donors invest in his hedge fund, even though it's not too successful. No need to worry about housing when you live in a $10 million apartment in New York. No need to worry about a job when you're given one, regardless of your qualifications (or lack of them).

Really, who needs money?

Certainly not Chelsea. After she left Wall Street, she pursued an academic career, using her family contacts. In 2010, NYU President John Sexton, Friend of Bill, appointed her as Assistant Vice-Provost of the Global Network University at N.Y.U., bringing together Muslims and Jews in New York and around the globe. Not clear what her qualifications were, other than daughter of Bill and Hillary.

When asked about this role, she told Time magazine that she was passionate about: "Trying to really figure out what the right pedagogy should be in multifaith and interfaith education and leadership."

Sounds fascinating. And typical Chelsea Clinton blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

In 2013, she co-founded and chaired the NYU multifaith "Of Many Institute." She insisted that her interfaith marriage qualified her for this position, since she lives an interfaith life with her Jewish husband. That's a good one.

But when evidence of brutal treatment of workers and violations of basic human rights were lodged against NYU's construction workers at the new campus of the Global Network University in Abu Dhabi, Ms. Clinton was silent about the abuses to her new Muslim constituency.

That's not her department.

Chelsea's next job was as a Special Correspondent for NBC TV. That was a bust, but a lucrative bust. She had a contract for $600,000 a year, although in 2014, she only appeared on four very boring segments, including an interview with the Geico Gecko. So bad was she on camera that she usually does a voice over segment with very actual live time -- if any -- on camera. Even NBC relayed how bad she was and dumped her.

Apparently, Ms. Clinton received very special treatment at NBC. Agents hired by her parents basically came in and convinced the idiots at the network that she would be an asset. They were dead wrong. And she insisted on being treated like a prima donna. NBC staff were told not to approach her, but to go through her producers. The few interviews she did were painful to watch.

She's also paid $300,000 for sitting on the Board of a Barry Diller company.  No telling what that's about. Barry and his wife Diane von Furstenberg are big fans and supporters of Bill and Hillary. It's lucrative to have the Clinton last name.

So it's easy to understand why unemployment isn't Chelsea's specialty. Maybe she could get a briefing from a few of the 300 economists her mother is consulting with over an economic policy.

Now Chelsea is Vice-Chairman of the Clinton Foundation, another position she seems to be over her head. She merits one more staff person than her father. He only gets 5, while she gets 6. Bus she has so many important things to do!!! And, although not an inspiring speaker, she goes out to speak on behalf of the organization -- at least five organizations have actually paid to hear her speak. That's hard to believe because she's awkward in front of a microphone, even though she's been practicing it for years. Her speeches are littered with the same canned lines, time after time.

Apparently Chelsea's leadership and management talents are not really appreciated at the Foundation. Since she became involved, lots of folks have left, claiming she was "unpleasant" to deal with. Of course, she's had no management experience.

Chelsea has no experience as an author. But yet the Clinton-friendly publishing house reached out to her anyway. She'll figure it out -- with help from aides, ghosts, etc. And, once again, she'll trade on the Clinton name.

That's what she does. Any advice she has is certainly irrelevant.

Here's what Chelsea has to say about her new book:

"In It's Your World, I try to explain what I think are some of the biggest challenges facing our world today, particularly for young people," said Clinton. "I also explore some of the solutions to those challenges and share stories of inspiring kids and teenagers doing amazing work to help people and our planet have brighter and healthier futures. My hope is that the book will inspire readers to realize that they can start making a difference now, in their own way, for their family, their community, and our world."

Thanks, Chelsea. We can't wait to read it.

[Crafty_Dog]

Clinton Foundation Used By Hillary To Secretly Pay Political Hitman And Amateur Spy, Sid Blumenthal
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 28, 2015
What was Sidney Blumenthal hired to do for his $120,000 a year full-time salary at the Clinton Foundation during the four years that Hillary was Secretary of State? Was he hired to provide off-the-shelf intelligence to Hillary? And to trash her critics and possible opponents?

That's what it looks like.

Blumenthal has always been Hillary's expert on the vast right wing conspiracy and he is superb at stoking her paranoia and investigating and attacking anyone who threatens the Clinton orbit. He's the one that spread the groundless rumor, conceived by Hillary, that Monica Lewinsky was an unwelcome and unstable stalker of an innocent president. Anything for Hillary.

We know that Sidney sent 20 dense emails chock full of cloak and dagger "intel" about Libya and Algeria to the Secretary of State. We also know that Hillary took Sid's information and advice seriously and circulated his emails to her top aides in the State Department (after scrubbing Sid's name).

There's something else we know: Sidney had absolutely no experience in foreign affairs and the source of his information was, in part, a party with a financial interest in Libya.

What we didn't know was that shortly after the Obama Administration refused to allow Hillary to hire Sidney, he landed on the Clinton Foundation payroll -- as a full-time employee with a big salary and benefits. After Hillary left the State Department, Sidney was demoted to a consultant -- he kept his salary but the benefits were cut. It was only a few months ago -- in March -- that he left the Clinton Foundation. Right about the time that his emails surfaced.

At the same time that he worked full-time at the Foundation, Sidney also worked for Media Matters -- the aggressive pro-Hillary group headed by the wacky David Brock. In addition, Sidney was a consultant to a pro-Hillary PAC. He was a busy man -- consumed with defending Hillary.

So Sidney was at Hillary's full disposal while she was Secretary of State. Sidney's claims that he sent the emails as a "private citizen" don't sound too good. He may have been a private citizen, but he was paid by the Clintons.

So maybe his "unsolicited" advice on Libya wasn't so unsolicited after all.

When Hillary was asked about Sidney's emails, she never mentioned his employment at the Clinton Foundation. Here's what she said: "We've been friends for a long time," said Clinton during an event in Iowa. "He sent me emails I passed on in some instances. That's part of the give and take...I'm going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are."

Once again, Clinton is skirting the truth. Initially, when Blumenthal's connection to the Clinton Foundation was made public, a spokesman said that he helped with "research" and "planning a commemorative event."

Now that we know that he was a full-time employee, the Clinton Foundation is now saying that Sidney worked on President Clinton's "legacy."

It's now obvious that Sidney was there to help Hillary in her political work. That's not what the Clinton Foundation is supposed to be doing.

Blumenthal has been subpoenaed by the Benghazi Committee. Here's one question it should ask: Did Sidney Blumenthal do any work -- with Media Matters, for example, -- to counter criticisms of Hillary's role in Benghazi?

ONE MORE QUESTION: What other political activities were funded by the Clinton Foundation?

[DougMacG]

My wish is to defeat her on ideology, rather than corruption and character, but while we wait for her trade position, Keysone decision, tax plan and budget, we can take a look at her team.

Meet Cody Shearer, the Strangest Character in Hillary’s Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
 BY BRENDAN BORDELON,   National Review  (link below)

And you thought Sidney Blumenthal was shady. Few people have heard of Cody Shearer, the unsanctioned diplomat, private eye, and Clinton flunky whose name surfaced in connection with the so-called intelligence reports Sidney Blumenthal was channeling to Hillary Clinton during her time at the State Department. But this shadowy fixture of the Clinton machine was everywhere in the 1990s — including war-torn Bosnia, where he became the subject of a State Department investigation after he represented himself as an agent of the U.S. government and took cash from a genocidal warlord.

Now evidence suggests Shearer, working with his partner Blumenthal, was up to something similar during the 2011 revolution in Libya. And like in the 1990s, the Clintons were lurking on the margins. Much of the intelligence contained in memos fed to the Clinton State Department by Blumenthal was not just self-serving — it was provided by someone with a history of misleading foreign sources, misrepresenting himself as an agent of the U.S. government, and creating trouble for both himself and the United States abroad. Much of the intelligence contained in memos fed to the Clinton State Department by Blumenthal was not just self-serving — it was provided by someone with a history of misrepresenting himself as an agent of the U.S. government.

Though often described as a journalist, Shearer hasn’t written much since the 1980s. His work, like that of his father, Lloyd Shearer, the former editor of Parade magazine, was often gossipy and reputation-ruining. A series of columns the younger Shearer wrote on the sexual proclivities of former Texas senator John Tower sank his nomination for defense secretary in 1989. RELATED: Did Sidney Blumenthal Violate Foreign-Lobbying Laws?

Shearer’s career took a strange turn when the Clintons entered the White House in 1992. His entrée into the first family’s orbit was Strobe Talbott, Shearer’s brother-in-law, who had been a friend of Bill Clinton since the president’s days at Oxford. Talbott served as a deputy secretary in Bill Clinton’s State Department; his brother-in-law took a different route, allegedly working with Clinton enforcer Terry Lenzner to investigate and, at times, intimidate women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.

But Shearer’s political intrigues in the ’90s extended beyond U.S. shores. In the middle of the decade, for reasons that remain unclear, he traveled to Europe to negotiate with associates of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian-Serb president known to have orchestrated the mass killings of Bosnian Muslims — including the Srebrenica genocide — during the brutal Yugoslav Wars. Representing himself as an agent of the State Department, Shearer told his Serbian contacts, which included members of Karadzic’s family, that he could reduce the severity of impending war-crimes charges if Karadzic surrendered. He claimed he was in contact not only with his brother-in-law, but also with then-secretary of state Madeleine Albright and even with President Clinton himself. 

“He said, ‘If you can show to my friends, meaning his brother-in-law and the president, that you can offer a serious line of negotiation, military action to capture Karadzic would not happen,’” the Serbian associate said, according to a 1999 Wall Street Journal article. A subsequent State Department investigation found that the Serbs paid Shearer at least $25,000 for his efforts, though the Serbs themselves claim he was paid much more.

Although Shearer’s negotiations on behalf of the U.S. government were unauthorized, the Wall Street Journal reported that Strobe Talbott knew of his brother-in-law’s activities at least one year before the State Department did and asked him to stop. He only felt compelled to do so, according to the Journal, because Shearer was erroneously informing his Serbian contacts that the U.S. supported a plan to partition Bosnia, not because he was conducting shadow diplomacy with a genocidal warlord.

David Bossie, now the president of the conservative political-action committee Citizens United, first uncovered Shearer’s role in the Bosnia negotiations as a GOP researcher on the House Oversight Committee in the 1990s. The State Department’s inspector general opened an investigation into Shearer’s actions in 1999, but it was never publicly released. “It was just one of those things that fell by the wayside,” says Bossie. “And then the Clintons leave office and it’s all forgotten.” Citizens United is now asking the State Department to release the investigation’s results.

Fast-forward 14 years and, in early 2011, as a State Department-sanctioned revolution against the Qaddafi regime in Libya was picking up steam, longtime Clinton consigliere Sidney Blumenthal was sending “confidential” intelligence memos to Hillary Clinton. He was touting leaders of the Libyan rebel movement with whom he had business dealings and pushing for the hire of private military contractors while working as an adviser to Osprey Global Solutions, a contracting company seeking to do business in Libya.

Shearer was aiding Blumenthal in these “intelligence-gathering” efforts. In one e-mail message from May 2001, first published by Gawker in March, Shearer appears to be serving as the liaison between Blumenthal and “Grange,” the former Army general and CEO of Osprey, as they attempt to organize a small team of contractors to conduct an unspecified mission to the Libyan border from Tunisia. He is also in frequent contact with “K,” a Libyan named Khalifa al Sherif who seems to be feeding Shearer intelligence reports from inside the Libyan revolutionary council.

It’s not clear to what extent Clinton knew she was involving herself with Shearer — National Review was unable to contact Shearer, and the Clinton campaign did not reply to a request for comment. Bossie says the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been notified of Shearer’s past indiscretions in Bosnia and believes that history will prove instructive as to what he was up to in Libya — and on whose behalf.

 - Brendan Bordelon is a political reporter for National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419131/meet-cody-shearer-strangest-character-hillarys-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-brendan

[DougMacG]

Is this the point where I have officially lost (again) Phase I of my bet with ccp, that she won't run, won't win the nomination, and won't be elected President?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillarys-first-2016-rally-set-for-june-13-118190.html

Her first attempt, posting a video and a couple of pretend appearances, looked pretty lame.  She wasn't really launching yet; she just needed to jump through some legal, financial hoops.  You know how the Clintons want to comply with not only the letter but the spirit of the law.  Soon she be up to her 2007 pace, announcing her willingness to accept the coronation.

I hope some junior Senator (other than Rubio or Cruz) doesn't step in and mess it up for her,

I bumped into an old friend yesterday, medium lefty, who I enjoy some political banter with.  He asked who I was supporting.  I said Rubio.  He seemed shocked, no response.  I asked him who he was supporting and he said Hillary without hesitation.  I asked if he liked her for her honesty?  No response.  I think he likes her now because that's who he wanted last time.  That should give her at least as good of a chance to be President as our second place finisher, Rick Santorum.   )

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/

[ccp]

"Is this the point where I have officially lost (again) Phase I of my bet with ccp, that she won't run, won't win the nomination, and won't be elected President?"

Doug,

This is one bet a don't like winning.

We've seen before how not only the Clinton mob will NOT TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER but how gullible so many voters are that they can be bought with chump change and emotional politics.  We have also seen that honesty , integrity, means so little to so many people as long as they get their tax payer benefits.

That is all the soak the rich crowd care about.

MarK  Levin keeps pointing out how Reagan, the last real conservative, won two landslide elections.

The electorate is not the same as then.  At least 50 million people in this country not born here and 80% of those are Democrats.   I do not feel confident we can win them over when going up against tax for cash for vote politicians.

I guess I sound like a broken record at this point.

Maybe one of the Repubs will break through.  Jeb is NOT the guy.   For the fourth time.  After H we got Clinton.  After W we got a Obama.   Jeb is not different then them no matter what they say.

WE don't need a "grown-up". If I hear Bush and his crowd say this once more.  We need a conservative leader who believes in America.  Not one world government.

I am also tired of Perrino on Fox.  What a self serving phoney she is.  I don't trust any Bush people except (ironically) W, Cheney and a few others.
 

[Crafty_Dog]

Breitbart:

Below we chronicle just 21 of the myriad Clinton Cash-related revelations that have emerged since the book’s publication—all of which have been confirmed and verified as accurate by national media organizations.

    Huffington Post: Clintons Bagged at Least $3.4 Million for 18 Speeches Funded by Keystone Pipeline Banks

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank—two of the Keystone XL pipeline’s largest investors—fully or partially bankrolled eight Hillary Clinton speeches that “put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate’s pocket,” reports the Huffington Post.

Moreover, according to Clinton Cash, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, Bill Clinton delivered 10 speeches from Nov. 2008 to mid-2011 totaling $1.8 million paid for by TD Bank, which held a $1.6 billion investment in the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Clintons’ speaking fees windfall, which has infuriated environmental groups, have yet to be addressed by Hillary Clinton.

    New York Times: Clinton Foundation Shook Down a Tiny Tsunami Relief Nonprofit for a $500,000 Speaking Fee

Bill Clinton refused to give a speech for a tiny nonprofit seeking to raise money for tsunami victims until the group agreed to pay a $500,000 speaking fee to the Clinton Foundation. The Times reported that the Clinton Foundation “sent the charity an invoice,” which “amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds—enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.”

    New York Magazine: Clinton Foundation “Strong-Armed” Charity Watchdog Group

When “the Clinton Foundation wound up on a ‘watch list’ maintained by the Charity Navigator, dubbed the ‘most prominent’ nonprofit watchdog,” reported New York Magazine writer Gabriel Sherman, “the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member.”

    International Business Times: Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Gave Clinton Foundation Donors Weapons Deals

“Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data,” reports IBT. “That figure—derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012)—represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.”

Salon, MotherJones, HuffingtonPost, Slate, and several other liberal publications reported on IBT’s findings.

    Washington Post: Clintons Hid 1,100 Foreign Donor Names in Violation of Ethics Agreement with Obama Admin.

Clinton Cash revealed five hidden foreign donations. On the heels of the book’s publication, the Washington Post uncovered another 1,100 foreign donor names hidden in the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—a Clinton Foundation initiative Bill Clinton erected with controversial billionaire mining executive Frank Giustra.

“A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration,” reports the Washington Post. “The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.”

In a follow-up story, the Post reports that only 21 of Frank Giustra and Bill Clinton’s secret 1,100 foreign donors have subsequently been revealed. If and when the other 1,079 hidden donors names will be revealed is presently unclear—and will be the subject of forthcoming investigative reports by Breitbart News.

    Vox: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Lobbied Hillary’s State Dept.

“Public records alone reveal a nearly limitless supply of cozy relationships between the Clintons and companies with interests before the government,” reports Vox. “There’s a household name at the nexus of the foundation and the State Department for every letter of the alphabet but “X” (often more than one): Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Chevron, (John) Deere, Eli Lilly, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, HBO, Intel, JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, NBC Universal, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Qualcomm, Rotary International, Siemens, Target, Unilever, Verizon, Walmart, Yahoo, and Ze-gen.”

    BuzzFeed: Two of Hillary Clinton’s Top Donors Were Major Felons

When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, two of her biggest fundraisers were conducting massive Ponzi schemes. One was Hsu, who posed as a garment tycoon, and is now serving a 24-year sentence in federal prison in Milan, Michigan. The other, Hassan Nemazee, is serving a 12-year sentence in Otisville, New York, for bank fraud. He used fake documents and nonexistent loans to trick bankers into extending him more credit,” reports Ben Smith of BuzFeed. “Those two convictions cast light on a central perplexity of the 2016 presidential cycle, and its ‘Clinton Cash‘ phase: Why are shady people with murky interests always hanging around political superstars, and particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton?”

    Daily Beast: Clintons’ Charity Scored Millions from Qatar and Donations from Corrupt FIFA Soccer Organization

“The Clinton global charity has received between $50,000 and $100,000 from soccer’s governing body and has partnered with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on several occasions, according to donor listings on the foundation’s website,” reports The Daily Beast. “Qatar 2022 committee gave the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014 and the State of Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million in previous, unspecified years.”

    Associated Press: The Clintons’ Have a Secret “Pass-Through” Company—WJC, LLC

“The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family’s finances,” reported the AP. “The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president’s finances on the record, said the entity was a ‘pass-through’ company designed to channel payments to the former president.”

Hillary Clinton has yet to release the names and amounts of the payments that flowed through the hidden WJC, LLC, company.

    New York Times: Hillary Funneled $10K Monthly Payments to Sidney Blumenthal Through Clinton Foundation

“An examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years,” reports the Times. “While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation…and worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.”

    New Yorker: Bill Clinton Scored a $500,000 Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-backed Bank

The New Yorker confirms Clinton Cash’s reporting that Bill Clinton bagged $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin.”

“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the New Yorker. To date, Hillary Clinton nor her campaign have answered that question.

    Washington Post: Hillary Clinton’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Co. that Received a Coveted Haitian “Gold Exploitation Permit” that Has Only Twice Been Awarded in 50 Years. Rodham Met the Mining Executive in Charge of the Company at a Clinton Foundation Event.

“In interviews with The Washington Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative—an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors.”

“Asked whether he attends CGI meetings to explore personal business opportunities, Rodham responded, ‘No, I go to see old friends. But you never know what can happen.’”

    New York Times: Court Proceedings Reveal Hillary’s Brother Claimed Admits Clinton Foundation and the Clintons Are Key to His Haiti Connections

“I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Tony Rodham said according to a transcript of his testimony obtained by The Times. “That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials. I hound my brother-in-law [Bill Clinton], because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.”

    Wall Street Journal: Clinton Foundation Violated Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Admin. By Keeping Secret a Foreign Donation of Two Million Shares of Stock from a Foreign Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.

Clinton Cash revealed that Canadian mining tycoon Stephen Dattels scored an “open pit mining” concession at the Phulbari Mines in Bangladesh where his Polo Resources had investments. The coveted perk came just two months after Polo Resources gave the Clinton Foundation 2,000,000 shares of stock—a donation the Clinton Foundation kept hidden.

    New York Times: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Claims She Had No Idea Her State Dept. Was Considering Approving the Transfer of 20% of U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.—Even as the Clinton Foundation Bagged $145 Million in Donations from Investors in the Deal

In a 4,000-word front-page New York Times investigation, the Times confirmed in granular detail Clinton Cash’s reporting that Hillary’s State Dept. was one of nine agencies approving the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government. “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States,” reports the Times.

The Times then published a detailed table and infographic cataloging the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation made by uranium executives involved in the Russian transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium.

    Bloomberg: A For-Profit University Put Bill Clinton on Its Payroll and Scored a Jump in Funding from Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. When Clinton Cash Revealed the Scheme, Bill Clinton Quickly Resigned.

Even as Hillary Clinton and Democrats continue to blast for-profit colleges and universities, Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues to stonewall questions about how much Bill Clinton was paid by Laureate International Universities, one of the largest for-profit education companies in the world—and an organization that has underwritten Clinton Foundation events. As soon as Clinton Cash revealed Bill Clinton spent years on Laureate’s payroll, the former president quickly resigned.

According to an analysis by Bloomberg: “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.”

Hillary Clinton has refused to answer questions about the Clintons’ income from the for-profit education company.

    New York Times: The Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company Ian Telfer Made Secret Donations Totaling $2.35 Million to the Clinton Foundation—as Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Transfer of 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russians

Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation—donations that were never revealed until Clinton Cash reported them and the New York Times confirmed them.

Hillary Clinton has yet to answer a single question about Uranium One.

    Washington Post: Bill and Hillary Clinton Have Made at Least $26 Million in Speaking Fees from Entities Who Are Top Clinton Foundation Donors

According to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”

The Post added: “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”

    Washington Free Beacon: Former Clinton Campaign Operative-Turned-ABC News Host George Stephanopoulos Failed to Disclose His $75,000 Donation and Deep Involvement in the Clinton Foundation Before Launching an Attack Interview Against Clinton Cash Author

Clinton political operative-turned-ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos infamously hid his $75,000 Clinton Foundation donation from ABC News viewers before launching a partisan attack “interview” with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer.

Roundly condemned by numerous journalists, Stephanopoulos apologized and received zero punishment from ABC News. Hillary Clinton’s campaign then used footage from the Stephanopoulos’ attack “interview” with Schweizer in its political campaign videos.

“It was outrageous,” said former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson.

Hillary Clinton has yet to answer whether her  campaign coordinated with Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos.

    CNBC: Clinton Foundation Mega Donor Frank Holmes Claimed He Sold Uranium One Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Russian Transfer—Despite His Company’s Own SEC Filings Proving Otherwise

In a highly embarrassing CNBC grilling, Clinton mega donor and uranium executive Frank Holmes claimed he sold his Uranium One stock well before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. greenlit the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to the Russian government in 2010.

However, according to his company’s, U.S. Global Investors, own 2011 SEC filing, Holmes’ company did, in fact, still hold Uranium One stock, a point he later conceded.

    Politico: Hillary’s Foundation Accepted $1 Million from Human Rights Violator Morocco for a Lavish Event

“The event is being funded largely by a contribution of at least $1 million from OCP, a phosphate exporter owned by Morocco’s constitutional monarchy, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the event,” reports Politico. “But in 2011, Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of ‘arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.’”

ABC News similarly confirmed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of the unseemly funds.

[ccp]

The Mobsters' reply has gone from a laughable "not one shred of evidence" to "no smoking gun".

The evidence is already beyond a reasonable doubt.   Just no controlling legal authority willing to take this mob to task.

[DougMacG]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/02/exclusive-house-committee-knows-of-hillary-email-server-whistleblower/

[Crafty_Dog]

 By
Kimberley A. Strassel
June 4, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET
340 COMMENTS

The scandal of the century at the IRS was that agency’s secret targeting of conservative nonprofits. Perhaps a close second is the scandal of what the IRS hasn’t been investigating: the Clinton Foundation.

The media’s focus is on Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, and whether she took official actions to benefit her family’s global charity. But the mistake is starting from the premise that the Clinton Foundation is a “charity.” What’s clear by now is that this family enterprise was set up as a global shakedown operation, designed to finance and nurture the Clintons’ continued political ambitions. It’s a Hillary super PAC that throws in the occasional good deed.

That much is made obvious by looking at the foundation’s employment rolls. Most charities are staffed by folks who have spent a lifetime in nonprofits, writing grants or doing overseas field work. The Clinton Foundation is staffed by political operatives. It has been basically a parking lot for Clinton campaign workers—a comfy place to draw a big check as they geared up for Hillary’s presidential run.

The revolving door is spinning quickly these days. There’s Dennis Cheng, a finance director for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 bid, who went to the Clinton Foundation as its chief development officer. There he built a giant donor file, which he earlier this year took with him to head up fundraising for the Clinton 2016 campaign. There’s Katie Dowd, who raised $100 million as Mrs. Clinton’s new media director in 2008, then went to a Clinton PAC, then to the State Department, then to the foundation as a “tech adviser.” She’s now at Clinton 2016 as digital director.

Some operatives don’t even bother feigning separation. Longtime aide Cheryl Mills served as general counsel to Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, then worked at State. She then joined the board of directors of the foundation and remains on it still, even as she works on Clinton 2016. Nick Merrill, an aide to Mrs. Clinton at State, has continued on as her press liaison. Last year his name popped up on a news release as a contact person for the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Merrill will be a campaign spokesman for Clinton 2016.

Maura Pally was until recently the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation. Her training for this important job was working as a lawyer in the Clinton White House, as a counsel to Hillary 2008, and in cultural affairs at the State Department. Valerie Alexander is the foundation’s chief marketing officer, and the woman responsible for turning the outfit into a Clinton PR machine. She worked as a senior communications adviser for Hillary 2008.

Amitabh Desai is the foundation’s foreign policy director. He was a legislative aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Craig Minassian is the foundation’s chief communications officer. He worked on Hillary 2008. Ira Magaziner is CEO of the Clinton Health Care Access Initiative. He is one of the Clintons’ oldest advisers. Bari Lurie, chief of staff to Chelsea Clinton, worked on Hillary’s Senate campaign and her 2008 run, and for her PAC. Erika Gudmundson is the foundation’s deputy director of communications initiatives. She was a press aide for Hillary 2008. You get the point.

The question isn’t how or whether these folks will help with Clinton 2016, but when and in what capacity. Ditto more than a dozen other staffers at the foundation who lack long histories with Clinton but who came straight out of politics—either working for the Democratic National Committee, other politicians or super PACS.

The other question is how many more operatives are cashing foundation checks that we don’t know about—as “consultants” for the group. We now know longtime Clinton pal Sid Blumenthal drew $10,000 a month. For what?

Then there’s Mrs. Clinton’s longtime aide, Huma Abedin, who worked as traveling chief of staff during the 2008 campaign, then went to State. There she was granted a special arrangement to continue earning money as a private-sector consultant. Among those she consulted for? The Clinton Foundation. Ms. Abedin has transitioned back as vice chairman of Mrs. Clinton 2016 campaign. There are surely more.

This is typically Clinton, which means it is typically on the edge of legal. The foundation operates as a nonprofit, raising hundreds of millions as a “charity.” We know from foundation tax filings that it spends an extraordinary portion of its funds on travel and staff. How many donors are unaware that their money is going to keep Clinton friends in full employment? How many are aware and give precisely for that reason—to help elect a new president, one who will gratefully remember their help?

Lucky for the Clintons, nobody looks. As a charity (and unlike a super PAC), the foundation is subject to almost no oversight. The IRS in the past has stripped charities of their tax-exempt status when they are shown to be operating for a purpose other than benevolence. The agency has shown no real interest in the Clinton Foundation. Go figure.

Clinton allies are insisting to all who listen that the foundation exists to do good. It does. It exists to do very good things for Hillary and Bill and all their longtime allies. And in that, it has succeeded beautifully.

Write to kim@wsj.com

[DougMacG]

That's right!  How did the IRS non-profit group shut down tea party groups for years for doing nothing wrong and then give the Clinton Family Crime Foundation who directs almost none of its money to charity a free pass.  You would think they would have to at least fake an investigation.

[ccp]

Doug,

Your right.

Anyone see a pattern.  Any Republican is a fair target (Hastert for withdrawing his own money for a personal reason),  Rubio because he has four traffic tickets in 18 years, or a Democrat who doesn't toe the Obama line (Menendez) while the Democrats who do toe the line (Sharpton, Clintons, etc.) are given passes.

The Clinton foundation is a nice example of what is the tip of the ice berg in white collar crime. 

[Crafty_Dog]

Sid Blumenthal’s Email Discovery
The slow roll of Libya-related communication continues.
June 17, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET


Hillary Clinton says she turned over to the State Department “all” of the emails from her private email account related to her work as Secretary of State. And State has reassured Congress that it turned over “every” Clinton email demanded as part of the House investigation into the Benghazi attack. This must depend on the definition of “all” and “every.”

The House Select Committee on Benghazi recently sent subpoenas to Sidney Blumenthal, the longtime Clinton political hit man who was in steady contact with Mrs. Clinton (via her private email) while she was the top U.S. diplomat. Emails show Mr. Blumenthal was advising two U.S. companies seeking Libyan contracts at the same time he was secretly advising Secretary of State Clinton about Libya. Mr. Blumenthal’s attorney says his client had no financial interest in the two companies—though no one is denying that the friends of Mr. Blumenthal who ran the companies were looking for business.

So imagine Congress’s surprise on Friday when Mr. Blumenthal responded to a subpoena by turning over 60 more Libya-related communications with Mrs. Clinton—some 120 pages. Politico reports that Members of Congress still aren’t sure whether Mrs. Clinton failed to give the emails to State, or State failed to give the emails to Congress, which is likely to release the new emails in the coming days.

State’s excuse for the omission is that it thought the subpoena was only for Mrs. Clinton’s Benghazi-related email (not broader Libya correspondence). This is hard to believe given that Congress’s initial early-December request—to State and Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer—begins: “Please provide, as soon as possible but no later than Dec. 31, 2014, any and all documents and communications referring or relating to a.) Libya (including but not limited to Benghazi and Tripoli) . . .” There’s that “all” word again.

There’s a reason Mrs. Clinton kept control over her server, and deleted an unknown number of emails, and it’s the same reason she now won’t let an outside party review her records. She wants the public to see as little as possible so she can have an accountability-free pass to the White House.

(That and she wants to avoid felony charges that would/should lead to jail time-- Marc)

[Crafty_Dog]

http://1776channel.com/2015/02/tom-cruise-is-cias-barry-seal-in-mena-movie-could-derail-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush/

[G M]

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-21-at-9.29.18-AM.png

Historic

[DougMacG]

Hillary’s Abysmal Record as Secretary of State Alone... BY THOMAS SOWELL

There are no sure things in politics, but Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a sure thing to become the Democrats’ candidate for president in 2016. This is one of the painful but inescapable signs of our time. There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. What is even more painful is that none of that matters politically. Many people simply want “a woman” to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified. What is Hillary’s history? In the most important job she has ever held — secretary of state — American foreign policy has had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters.

U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, led to Islamic extremists’ taking over in Egypt and terrorist chaos in Libya, where the American ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans. Fortunately, the Egyptian military has gotten rid of that country’s extremist government that was persecuting Christians, threatening Israel, and aligning itself with our enemies. But that was in spite of American foreign policy. In Europe, as in the Middle East, our foreign policy during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was to undermine our friends and cater to our enemies. In the most important job she has ever held — secretary of state — American foreign policy has had one setback after another.

The famous “reset” in our foreign policy with Russia began with the Obama administration’s reneging on a pre-existing American commitment to supply defensive technology to shield Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks. This left both countries vulnerable to pressures and threats from Russia — and left other countries elsewhere wondering how much they could rely on American promises. Even after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Obama administration refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons with which to defend themselves. This was especially ironic since Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate, was one of those urging Ukraine to not only give up the nuclear weapons it had inherited from its days as a member of the Soviet Union, but to also reduce conventional military arms.

President Obama, like other presidents, has made his own foreign policy. But Hillary Clinton, like other secretaries of state, had the option of resigning if she did not agree with it. In reality, she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama’s when they were both in the Senate. Both of them opposed the military “surge” in Iraq, under General David Petraeus, that defeated the terrorists there. Even after the surge succeeded, Hillary Clinton was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought to discredit General Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge’s success became undeniable, even among those who had opposed it. The truly historic catastrophe of American foreign policy — not only failing to stop Iran from going nuclear, but making it more difficult for Israel to stop them — was also something that happened on Hillary Clinton’s watch as secretary of state. What the administration’s protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations with Iran accomplished was to allow Iran time to multiply, bury, and reinforce its nuclear facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to destroy those facilities.

There are no offsetting foreign-policy triumphs under Secretary of State Clinton. Syria, China and North Korea are other scenes of similar setbacks. The fact that many people are still prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States, in times made incredibly dangerous by the foreign-policy disasters on her watch as secretary of state, raises painful questions about this country. A president of the United States — any president — has the lives of more than 300 million Americans in his or her hands, and the future of Western civilization. If the debacles and disasters of the Obama administration have still not demonstrated the irresponsibility of choosing a president on the basis of demographic characteristics, it is hard to imagine what could. With our enemies around the world arming while we are disarming, such self-indulgent choices for president can leave our children and grandchildren a future that will be grim, if not catastrophic.

 — Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is www.tsowell.com

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420152/hillary-clinton-secretary-state-foreign-policy-disaster

[DougMacG]

"The timing doesn't work", she said about the contributions related to the Russian takeover of Uranium One, that the money was given to the foundation before she was Secretary of State.  - FALSE

More than $100 million came in from people who benefited from the transaction WHILE she was Secretary of State.

Hillary was secure in her knowledge that neither the interviewer nor most of the audience had read Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/hillary-tries-to-rebut-clinton-cash-fails.php


Clinton:  “I think part of the interesting twist to this is most foundations, charities do not publish all of their contributors. The Clinton Foundation does.”

But one of Schweizer’s revelations in Clinton Cash is that the Clinton Foundation does not, in fact, disclose all of its donors. Hillary is well aware of this, but apparently calculates that she can get away with more false claims.

[G M]

"The timing doesn't work", she said about the contributions related to the Russian takeover of Uranium One, that the money was given to the foundation before she was Secretary of State.  - FALSE

More than $100 million came in from people who benefited from the transaction WHILE she was Secretary of State.

Hillary was secure in her knowledge that neither the interviewer nor most of the audience had read Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/hillary-tries-to-rebut-clinton-cash-fails.php


Clinton:  “I think part of the interesting twist to this is most foundations, charities do not publish all of their contributors. The Clinton Foundation does.”

But one of Schweizer’s revelations in Clinton Cash is that the Clinton Foundation does not, in fact, disclose all of its donors. Hillary is well aware of this, but apparently calculates that she can get away with more false claims.

Who is going to vett her claims, the media?

[DougMacG]

"The timing doesn't work", she said about the contributions related to the Russian takeover of Uranium One, that the money was given to the foundation before she was Secretary of State.  - FALSE

More than $100 million came in from people who benefited from the transaction WHILE she was Secretary of State.

Hillary was secure in her knowledge that neither the interviewer nor most of the audience had read Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/hillary-tries-to-rebut-clinton-cash-fails.php

Clinton:  “I think part of the interesting twist to this is most foundations, charities do not publish all of their contributors. The Clinton Foundation does.”

But one of Schweizer’s revelations in Clinton Cash is that the Clinton Foundation does not, in fact, disclose all of its donors. Hillary is well aware of this, but apparently calculates that she can get away with more false claims.

Who is going to vett her claims, the media?

http://www.wmur.com/politics/hillary-clinton-facing-questions-over-involvement-in-uranium-one-sale/33737328

[Crafty_Dog]

Hillary And Sid's War
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 23, 2015
Did Sidney Blumenthal encourage then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to back military action against Moammar Gadhafi in Libya? Did he do so because it was in the financial interest of his friends and sources? Did Clinton listen to him to the virtual exclusion of professional intelligence sources? And was the information about which Clinton relied false?

These questions emerge from a review of the emails from Blumenthal to Clinton that have been released over the past year.

Libya was Clinton's war. It was she who badgered the national security team to approve a no-fly zone and to ratchet up our military involvement in toppling Gadhafi. In 2011, she told the United Nations Human Rights Council that "it is time for Gadhafi to go," and she condemned Russian reluctance to intervene as "despicable."
 
Her intel suggested genocide was happening in Libya. As Clinton told ABC News: "Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered ... and we were sitting here. The cries would be, 'Why did the United States not do anything?' "

The Washington Times reported this year that Clinton "ultimately became the most powerful advocate for using U.S. military force to dethrone Gadhafi, both in her closed-door meetings with Mr. Obama, who ultimately made the decision, and in public with allies and the news media."

Now, emails have been released suggesting it was Blumenthal that stoked her desire to intervene and helped heighten her resolution to act. "This is an historic moment," he portentously told the secretary of State on Aug. 22, 2011, "and you will be credited for realizing it. When Qaddafi is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras. ... You must establish yourself in the historical record at that moment."

Sidney Blumental, with no military or intelligence experience or credentials, advised that "Qaddafi's army's morale and cohesion might be conclusively shattered by another round or two of ferocious bombing."

But he was wrong. There was no genocide. The concerns of senior military leaders, including Robert Gates, then Defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were, according to The Washington Times "repeatedly cast aside."

One official from the Defense Intelligence Agency tactfully called the move to intervene in Libya "an intelligence-light decision." The Times reported that "the intelligence community gathered no specific evidence of an impending genocide in Libya in spring 2011, undercutting [Clinton's] primary argument for using the U.S. military to remove Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power."

Why did Blumenthal continue to press the point?

Investigative reporting by veteran journalist Jeff Gerth at ProPublica gives some insight into a possible reason: It may have been an attempt to help his friends get contracts from a new Libyan government.

Blumenthal was working closely with David L. Grange, a retired Army major general who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999. Gerth reported that "Grange subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence security training, armament sales and other services." On Aug. 24, 2011, Osprey signed a memorandum of understanding with the Libyan National Transition Council -- the entity that took control in the wake of Gadhafi's execution -- agreeing that Osprey would contract with the council to "assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country and train Libyan forces."

The prospect of having an in with the government of an oil-rich nation like Libya must have been enticing to Blumenthal's friends.

At the very least, this episode highlights Clinton's tendency to rely on gurus often to her detriment. In 1993 she leaned on Ira Magaziner, and healthcare reform crashed and burned. In 2008 she looked to Mark Penn and lost the election. In 2011, she relied on Blumenthal, and we entered a war we never should have fought.