Ridgewood NJ, Judicial Watch continues to press Clinton on Various actions taken at the State Department as well as her involvement with the Clinton Foundation .But Hillary Clinton has a demonstrated record of showing contempt for the rule of law.
She refused to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State She violated the law and avoided accountability by using secret email accounts as Secretary of State She abused her public office to funnel money to personal accounts – much of which is now sloshing around her vanity “charity” that could be renamed “The Clinton Corruption Foundation.”This is all unacceptable.
In this country our leaders are bound by the rule of law. She must be held accountable for her actions.
Sign the petition now to demand that Hillary Clinton answer for her corruption!
The whole point of meeting a source at a bar is to get him (or her) in as relaxed a mood as possible in order to talk.
Midway into the conversation the source began slurring his words, eyes fixed on the empty beer bottle in front of him on the bar top. The dead, almost cross-eyed look in his eyes with a hint of curiosity for the unknown, suggested that the empty bottle might as well have been a lacquered Buddha statue on sale in Chinatown for $5.99.
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOJULY 23, 2015
WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.
But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.
Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.
Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.
For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were “well aware” of which “major oil companies and international banks” supported them during the rebellion, information they would “factor into decisions” about about who would be given access to the country’s rich oil reserves.
The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.
When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.
Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.
Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.
This “charity” would primarily be a cookie jar for the Clinton’s and their coterie of progressive catchfarts. About 90% of its annual budget on things like salaries, travel, etc. rather than actually doing something useful.
Hillary Clinton’s record as secretary of state became a hot-button issue this week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Bloomberg Television that the Barack Obama administration’s failed “reset” policy with Moscow was her “invention.”
Here’s why it matters: Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, gave an interview to Bloomberg View’s Al Hunt in April in which he said holding up the “major accomplishments” from her State Department tenure would be a centerpiece of her campaign. Podesta may want to reconsider that plan. Running on Clinton’s signature diplomatic initiatives is fraught with risks because, on closer inspection, most that he mentioned don’t hold up to scrutiny.
“She put together that sanctions package that’s led to at least the possibility of having a deal on the Iran nuclear program,” Podesta told Hunt in the interview, which was aired on PBS’s “Charlie Rose” show. “That took very careful and longtime careful diplomacy.”
In fact, the State Department under Clinton vigorously opposed almost all of the Iran sanctions passed by Congress while she was in office. Top officials, including Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, openly advocated against many bills, including the sanctions on Iran’s central bank, which dealt the true crippling blow to the Tehran regime. The Senate passed that bill 100-0 and Obama reluctantly signed them into law. The State Department did implement them, but was criticized by lawmakers and advocacy groups for using waivers in the law to exempt several countries, including China and our allies Japan and South Korea.
Clinton can also expect to be pressed during the campaign over her involvement in the secret negotiations that led to the controversial Iran nuclear negotiations now nearing completion. Her deputy, William Burns, and her top foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, heldmonths of clandestine meetings with Iranian officials to set up the talks. In the run-up to her campaign announcement, Clinton wascautiously supportive of the nuclear talks; leaving herself some wiggle room by saying she won’t render a final judgment until the deal is done.
Podesta then went on to say that Clinton “restored America’s place in the world, which had been very badly battered through the previous administration.”
While it’s true that global opinion of the U.S. soared when Barack Obama was first elected president, during Clinton’s State Department tenure of 2009 to 2013 there was no measurable upswing in foreigners’ views of America, according to the Pew Research Center’s polling on global attitudes. In most major countries, approval of the U.S. actually went down by the time Clinton left office, including by 11 percentage points in each of France, Germany and the U.K.
A poll conducted in 33 countries by the BBC World Service just after Clinton stepped down as secretary found that overall world opinion of the U.S. by 2013 was the lowest since the presidency of George W. Bush. If Clinton wants to run on having polished America’s image abroad, she’ll be hard pressed to come up with data to back it up.
“She engineered the so-called ‘pivot to Asia,’ ” Podesta continued. “Her first trip was to China.”
Clinton did lead parts of what the White House now calls the “rebalance” to Asia, but as Governor Scott Walker, a top Republican contender, pointed out last week, that policy has fallen well short of expectations. With China building fake islands around the South China Sea and threatening to enforce an air-exclusion zone in the area, the pivot policy now looks inadequate.
Along with Treasury Department officials, Clinton initiated a newstrategic dialogue with China, but after several high-level summits, the effort has produced few if any tangible results. The State Department did succeed in creating an opening with Myanmar, an effort led by her top Asia official, Kurt Campbell. Unfortunately, the military junta has not eased up its brutal persecution of Muslim minorities, leading to a vast refugee crisis in Southeast Asia, and political reform has now slowed to a crawl.
“She put some new issues on the table for American diplomacy,” Podesta went on, “including internet freedom, the importance of women’s rights as human rights, of LGBT rights as human rights, as part of our diplomatic package, which I think restored values to the way America projects its power around the world.”
This is hard to square with the fact that, in her first visit to China, Clinton insisted that human rights advocacy “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.” Clinton’s State Department repeatedly waived lawsthat would have cut aid to countries guilty of gross human rights violations, such as Egypt. This record won’t be helped by Clinton’s family foundation having taken millions of dollars from foreign governments that systematically abuse their citizens and deny basic liberties to women.
There’s a myth among Hillary Clinton supporters that decades of experience has made the former secretary of state the most pragmatic choice for president in 2016. And like most fairy tales, it conveniently glosses over the heroine’s flaws: her 31,000-plus missing emails (the subject of a lawsuit by the Associated Press), questions about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, and direct donations to Ms. Clinton from big banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
But there is an alternative. Rather than rallying around someone who can’t seem to elude perpetual media scrutiny, the person all Democrats should pay close attention to is former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley who is poised to officially join the race Saturday. The former Baltimore mayor and two-term governor offers a genuine alternative to the status quo within Washington and a real threat to any GOP challenger — especially Jeb Bush.
Mr. O’Malley, unlike Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, isn’t linked to perpetual scandal and criticism, nor is he beholden to foreign donors, investment banks or a family surname. He rightfully stated that the presidency isn’t “some crown to be passed between two families” and compared to Ms. Clinton, Mr. O’Malley offers a genuinely progressive outlook on American politics. When both candidates are analyzed, it’s apparent that one caters to poll-driven centrism while the other is far more confident in a progressive vision for America.
Who is running for president in 2016?
While Ms. Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, Mr. O’Malley has been a longtime critic of the Iraq War. As governor, Mr. O’Malley sponsored and signed a same-sex marriage bill when Hillary Clinton was overtly against gay marriage. He also signed a marijuana decriminalization bill, while Ms. Clinton has said she was against the decriminalization of marijuana. Martin O’Malley wants to bring back Glass-Steagall, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership a “bad trade deal,” and urged the Senate in 2014 to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, once referred to TPP as “the gold standard in trade agreements,”and she still hasn’t taken a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina argued that “titles are just titles” and Hillary Clinton’s “track record” includes the collapse of the Middle East and the failed Russian reset on Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on MSNBC.
Fiorina said, “I come from a world where titles are just titles, and talk is just talk. It’s only in politics where titles and words mean a lot. In the rest of the world, it’s actually about what have you done, actions speak louder than words. People want to know are your words and your actions consistent and are they consistent over time. And so, I think when 82% of the American people now believe that there is a professional political class more interested in preserving its own power and privilege than it is in serving the American people, people expect basic questions to be asked of anyone running for president. ‘What have you done, are you trustworthy, are you transparent, will you answer questions?’”
Fiorina said that while Hillary Clinton has said some “wonderful things” as Secretary of State, “it’s also true that as Secretary of State she took women’s rights and human rights off the table for discussion with China. It’s also true as Secretary of State that she called Bashar al-Assad a positive reformer. It’s also true that in 2011, when she was Secretary of State, she said that Iraq was a free, stable, sovereign nation. And now we have a nation falling apart, Iranian influence growing, ISIS growing. It’s true that she said that she could reset our Russia — our relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin is on the march. So, I think all of those things I just named go fundamentally to what is her track record.”
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger May 21 at 9:53 PM
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMAY 18, 2015
When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.
Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview.
Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.
But 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.
A federal judge has agreed to reopen a lawsuit that seeks access to emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server.
The federal judge’s decision marks the first time a court has taken action in the email scandal.
Judge Andrew Napolitano explained the particulars behind the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit this morning.
Judicial Watch and the State Department – usually on opposite sides in these types of cases – are actually in agreement, with both asking Judge Reggie B. Walton for the documents to be turned over.
Napolitano called Walton a “tough cookie” and “probably the last judge in Washington, D.C., [Clinton] wanted this issue to be in front of.”
He said that the State Department consented to the request because they have been “embarrassed” by their lack of access to Clinton’s emails.
The court had previously dismissed Judicial Watch’s request, thinking the documents did not exist.
‘Freedom Summit’ speakers bring heavy anti-Clinton artillery to Greenville, South Carolina Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wondered aloud if Hillary would use ‘re-education camps’ to force Christians to change their views on abortion Female GOP pollster: ‘The question isn’t whether you want “a” woman to be president. It’s whether you want “that” woman’ to be president’ Rick Santorum, a former senator, could only think of one nice thing to say to Hillary: ‘Happy Mothers Day!’ Donald Trump spent 15 seconds trying to think of something nice to say about her, but couldn’t
By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM IN GREENVILLE, S.C.
PUBLISHED: 12:50 EST, 9 May 2015 | UPDATED: 13:06 EST, 9 May 2015
Democrats ‘don’t like “old, white and rich”,’ a red-meat conservative audience heard Saturday in the early hours of the South Carolina Freedom Summit.
‘And their answer to that is Hillary.’
Mrs. Clinton, the American liberal most likely to contend for the presidency in 2016, rivaled the ISIS terror army in taking punches from Republicans at the event, held in Greenville.
The demographic quip came from Kellyanne Conway, a pollster. But she wasn’t alone.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, four years ago the Iowa Caucus victor, complained that Clinton stood in the way of nuclear-related sanctions he once drafted when they were both senators.
Asked after his speech if he could think of a nice work or two for the former secretary of state, he stood puzzled and then shrugged: ‘Happy Mother’s Day?’
Shocking revelations show that at least four Clinton Foundation board of directors have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes, including bribery and fraud.
This newest, startling revelation is just one more of many in Peter Schweizer’s bombshell book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, the book that has sent the Hillary Clinton campaign and the media scrambling.
The book shows that there are many problems with the Clinton charity. In fact, the Clinton Foundation is so unlike a real charity that even charity watchdog group Charity Navigatorrefuses to rate the Clinton Foundation because of its “atypical business model.”
One of those problems is the fact that the Clintons put big donors and close pals on the board for reasons that are hard to fathom. In fact, at least four of these “board members” have either been charged or convicted of serious financial irregularities, crimes including bribery and fraud.
The most well-known of these board members is Vinod Gupta.
by JOEL GEHRKE May 2, 2015 3:24 PM
Carly Fiorina made the case for her prospective presidential candidacy on Saturday, just days before she’s expected to officially jump into the race, telling a room full of conservative activists and writers that she has the policy background and the political skills to beat Hillary Clinton in a general election. “Hillary Clinton may be a vulnerable candidate, in many ways, but we should not underestimate her,” Fiorina said at the National Review Institute Ideas Summit. “We have to have a nominee who can take punches, but we [also] have to have a nominee who will throw punches.”
Fiorina’s political ambitions have met with derision among political experts, given that the only people to serve as president without holding prior elected office were war heroes. Fiorina argued that her experience rising from the secretarial pool to CEO at Hewlett Packard makes her a true outsider who can direct the general disgust voters feel toward Washington, D.C. — and toward crony capitalism in particular — at Hillary Clinton.
Veteran defense lawyers see possible criminal inquiry for Clintons
By James Rosen
Published April 25, 2015
FoxNews.com
With a sitting Democratic senator recently indicted on federal bribery and corruption charges, top criminal defense lawyers in the nation’s capital say Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton could conceivably face similar scrutiny, amid mounting disclosures about the tangled finances of her family’s philanthropic foundation.
The new book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer, an investigative reporter affiliated with the right-leaning Hoover Institution, has unleashed a torrent of conflict-of-interest allegations relating to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s own conduct during her tenure, from 2009 to 2013, as secretary of state.
Particular scrutiny – by Fox News, the Washington Post, and the New York Times – has focused on why the State Department, under Clinton’s leadership, green-lighted a foreign transaction that enriched major donors to the foundation while placing an estimated 20 percent of America’s stockpile of uranium – the fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons -under the control of a Kremlin-backed Russian firm.
It was, moreover, shortly after the uranium deal went through that former President Bill Clinton nailed down a $500,000 fee for a speaking event in Moscow.
“There’s certainly smoke there,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at the Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLC, who has long experience handling financial and public integrity cases. “The question’s going to be whether or not she took any official action in exchange for those donations. If she did, I think there is going to be a high, high likelihood of additional scrutiny, either from Capitol Hill or from the Department of Justice itself.”
Burns likened the known fact setting in the Clinton controversies to that which led to the federal indictment, earlier this month, of Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ, who stands accused of performing favors for a well-connected Democratic donor in exchange for pricey gifts. Menendez has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
