Dog Brothers Public Forum

Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2008, 09:29:17 AM

Title: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2008, 09:29:17 AM
This thread is for the matters concerning the long, sordid and frequently criminal history of the Hillbillary Clintons:
The Clintons' Terror Pardons
February 12, 2008; Page A17

It was nearly 10 p.m. on New Year's Eve, 1982. Two officers on New York Police Department's elite bomb squad rushed to headquarters at One Police Plaza, where minutes earlier an explosion had destroyed the entrance to the building. Lying amid the carnage was Police Officer Rocco Pascarella, his lower leg blasted off.

"He was ripped up like someone took a box cutter and shredded his face," remembered Detective Anthony Senft, one of the bomb-squad officers who answered the call 25 years ago. "We really didn't even know that he was a uniformed man until we found his weapon, that's how badly he was injured."

About 20 minutes later, Mr. Senft and his partner, Richard Pastorella, were blown 15 feet in the air as they knelt in protective gear to defuse another bomb. Detective Senft was blinded in one eye, his facial bones shattered, his hip severely fractured. Mr. Pastorella was blinded in both eyes and lost all the fingers of his right hand. A total of four bombs exploded in a single hour on that night, including at FBI headquarters in Manhattan and the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.

The perpetrators were members of Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN (the Spanish acronym), a clandestine terrorist group devoted to bringing about independence for Puerto Rico through violent means. Its members waged war on America with bombings, arson, kidnappings, prison escapes, threats and intimidation. The most gruesome attack was the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in Lower Manhattan. Timed to go off during the lunch-hour rush, the explosion decapitated one of the four people killed and injured another 60.

FALN bragged about the bloodbath, calling the victims "reactionary corporate executives" and threatening: "You have unleashed a storm from which you comfortable Yankees can't escape." By 1996, the FBI had linked FALN to 146 bombings and a string of armed robberies -- a reign of terror that resulted in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims.

On Aug. 7, 1999, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. African embassy bombings that killed 257 people and injured 5,000, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to the victims of terrorism, vowing that he "will not rest until justice is done." Four days later, while Congress was on summer recess, the White House quietly issued a press release announcing that the president was granting clemency to 16 imprisoned members of FALN. What began as a simple paragraph on the AP wire exploded into a major controversy.

Mr. Clinton justified the clemencies by asserting that the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes. None of the petitioners, he stated, had been directly involved in crimes that caused bodily harm to anyone. "For me," the president concluded, "the question, therefore, was whether their continuing incarceration served any meaningful purpose."

His comments, including the astonishing claim that the FALN prisoners were being unfairly punished because of "guilt by association," were widely condemned as a concession to terrorists. Further, they were seen as an outrageous slap in the face of the victims and a bitter betrayal of the cops and federal law enforcement officers who had put their lives on the line to protect the public and who had invested years of their careers to put these people behind bars. The U.S. Sentencing Commission affirmed a pre-existing Justice Department assessment that the sentences, ranging from 30 to 90 years, were "in line with sentences imposed in other cases for similar terrorist activity."

The prisoners were convicted on a variety of charges that included conspiracy, sedition, violation of the Hobbes Act (extortion by force, violence or fear), armed robbery and illegal possession of weapons and explosives -- including large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive, dynamite and huge caches of ammunition. Mr. Clinton's action was opposed by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. attorney offices that prosecuted the cases and the victims whose lives had been shattered. In contravention of standard procedures, none of these agencies, victims or families of victims were consulted or notified prior to the president's announcement.

"I know the chilling evidence that convicted the petitioners," wrote Deborah Devaney, one of the federal prosecutors who spent years on the cases. "The conspirators made every effort to murder and maim. . . . A few dedicated federal agents are the only people who stood in their way."

Observed Judge George Layton, who sentenced four FALN defendants for their conspiracy to use military-grade explosives to break an FALN leader from Ft. Leavenworth Penitentiary and detonate bombs at other public buildings, "[T]his case . . . represents one of the finest examples of preventive law enforcement that has ever come to this court's attention in the 20-odd years it has been a judge and in the 20 years before that as a practicing lawyer in criminal cases."

The FBI cracked the cases with the discovery of an FALN safe house and bomb factory. Video surveillance showed two of those on the clemency list firing weapons and building bombs intended for an imminent attack at a U.S. military installation. FBI agents obtained a warrant and entered the premises, surreptitiously disarming the bombs whose components bore the unmistakable FALN signature. They found 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, disguises, false IDs and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

A total of six safe houses were ultimately uncovered. Seven hundred hours of surveillance video were recorded, resulting in a mountain of evidence connecting the 16 prisoners to multiple FALN operations past and present.

Federal law enforcement agencies considered these individuals so dangerous, extraordinary security precautions were taken at their numerous trials. Courthouse elevators were restricted and no one, including the court officers, was permitted to carry a firearm in the courtroom.

Given all this, why would Bill Clinton, who had ignored the 3,226 clemency petitions that had piled up on his desk over the years, suddenly reach into the stack and pluck out these 16 meritless cases? (The New York Times ran a column with the headline, "Bill's Little Gift.")

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide "listening tour" in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) -- along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.

Initial reports stated that Mrs. Clinton supported the clemencies, but when public reaction went negative she changed course, issuing a short statement three weeks after the clemencies were announced. The prisoners' delay in refusing to renounce violence "speaks volumes," she said.

The Clintons were caught in an awkward predicament of their own making. The president had ignored federal guidelines for commutation of sentences, including the most fundamental: The prisoners hadn't actually asked for clemency.

To push the deal through, signed statements renouncing violence and expressing remorse were required by the Justice Department. The FALN prisoners, surely relishing the embarrassment and discomfiture they were causing the president and his wife, had previously declined to accept these conditions. Committed and unrepentant militants who did not accept the authority of the United States, they refused to apologize for activities they were proud of in order to obtain a clemency they never requested.

So desperate was the White House to get the deal finalized and out of the news, an unprecedented 16-way conference call was set up for the "petitioners" who were locked up in 11 different federal facilities so that they could strategize a response to the president's offer. Two eventually refused to renounce their cause, preferring to serve out their lengthy sentences rather than follow the White House script.

Mr. Clinton's fecklessness in the handling of these cases was demonstrated by the fact that none of the prisoners were required, as a standard condition of release, to cooperate in ongoing investigations of countless unsolved FALN bombing cases and other crimes. Mrs. Clinton's so-called disagreement with her husband on the matter made no mention of that fact. The risk of demanding such a requirement, of course, was that the prisoners might have proudly implicated themselves, causing the entire enterprise to implode, with maximum damage to the president and potentially sinking Hillary Clinton's Senate chances.

Meanwhile, Puerto Rican politicians in New York who'd been crowing to their constituents about the impending release of these "freedom fighters" were enraged and insulted at Hillary Clinton's withdrawal of support. "It was a horrible blunder," said State Sen. Olga A. Mendez. "She needs to learn the rules."

The first lady called her failure to consult the Puerto Rican political establishment before assessing the entire issue a mistake "that will never happen again" -- even as the cops who had been maimed and disfigured by FALN operations continued to be ignored. Tom and Joe Connor, two brothers who were little boys when their 33-year-old father, Frank, was killed in the Fraunces Tavern attack, were dumbstruck to learn that White House staffers referred to the FALN militants as "political prisoners" and were planning a meeting with their children to humanize their plight.

Members of Congress viewed the clemencies as a dangerous abuse of presidential power that could not go unchallenged. Resolutions condemning the president's action were passed with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate, 311-41 in the House. It was the most they could do; the president's pardon power, conferred by the Constitution, is absolute. The House launched an investigation, subpoenaing records from the White House and Justice in an effort to determine whether proper procedure had been followed. President Clinton promptly invoked executive privilege, putting Justice Department lawyers in the impossible position of admitting that they had sent the White House a recommendation on the issue, but barred from disclosing what it was.

Twenty-four hours before a scheduled Senate committee hearing, the DOJ withheld the FBI's written statement about the history of the FALN and an assessment of its current terrorist capability. "They pulled the plug on us," said an unnamed FBI official in a news report, referring to the Justice Department decision to prevent FBI testimony.

The investigation revealed that the White House was driving the effort to release the prisoners, rather than the other way around. White House aides created talking points and strategies for a public campaign on the prisoners' behalf included asking prominent individuals for letters supporting clemency.

Jeffrey Farrow, a key adviser on the White House Interagency Working Group for Puerto Rico recommended meetings with the president and the three leading members of Congressional Hispanic Caucus who were pushing the effort, stating in a March 6, 1999 email, "This is Gutierrez's [sic] top priority as well as of high constituent importance to Serrano and Velazquez." The next day, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Maria Echaveste sent an email to White House Counsel Charles Ruff, who was handling the clemency issue, supporting Mr. Farrow's view, saying, "Chuck -- Jeff's right about this -- very hot issue." Another adviser in the Working Group, Mayra Martinez-Fernandez, noted that releasing the prisoners would be "fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters)."

And there you have it. Votes.

While the pardon scandals that marked Bill and Hillary Clinton's final days in office are remembered as transactions involving cronies, criminals and campaign contributors, the FALN clemencies of 1999 should be remembered in the context of the increasing threat of domestic and transnational terrorism that was ramping up during the Clinton years of alleged peace and prosperity. To wit, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Tokyo subway Sarin attack, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1995 "Bojinka" conspiracy to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing, Osama bin Laden's 1996 and 1998 "Declarations of War" on America, the 1998 East African embassy bombings, the 2000 USS Sullivans bombing attempt, the 2000 USS Cole bombing, and the 2000 Millennium bombing plot.

It was within that context that the FBI gave its position on the FALN clemencies -- which the White House succeeded in keeping out of news coverage but ultimately failed to suppress -- stating that "the release of these individuals will psychologically and operationally enhance the ongoing violent and criminal activities of terrorist groups, not only in Puerto Rico, but throughout the world." The White House spun the clemencies as a sign of the president's universal commitment to "peace and reconciliation" just one year after Osama bin Laden told his followers that the United States is a "paper tiger" that can be attacked with impunity.

It would be a mistake to dismiss as "old news" the story of how and why these terrorists were released in light of the fact that it took place during the precise period when Bill Clinton now claims he was avidly engaged, even "obsessed," with efforts to protect the public from clandestine terrorist attacks. If Bill and Hillary Clinton were willing to pander to the demands of local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights activists defending bomb-makers convicted of seditious conspiracy, how might they stand up to pressure from other interest groups working in less obvious ways against U.S. interests in a post-9/11 world?

Radical Islamists are a sophisticated and determined enemy who understand that violence alone will not achieve their goals. Islamist front groups, representing themselves as rights organizations, are attempting to get a foothold here as they have already in parts of Western Europe by deftly exploiting ethnic and racial politics, agitating under the banner of civil liberties even as they are clamoring for the imposition of special Shariah law privileges in the public domain. They believe that the road to America's ultimate defeat is through the back door of policy and law and they are aggressively using money, influence and retail politics to achieve their goal.

On the campaign trail, the Clintons like to say that Bill is merely supportive and enthusiastic, "just like all the other candidates' spouses." Nothing could be further from the truth. Returning Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House would present the country with the unprecedented situation of a former and current president simultaneously occupying the White House, the practical implications of which have yet to be fully explored.

The FALN clemencies provide a disturbing example of how the abuse or misuse of presidential prerogative, under the guise of policy, can be put in service of the personal and private activities of the president's spouse -- and beyond the reach of meaningful congressional oversight.

Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
Title: The Democrats finally have their *new* and revised anti-republican champion
Post by: ccp on February 13, 2008, 05:37:14 AM
I believe without hesitation that the Clintons would have Obama assasinated if they thought they would get away with it.
And then Hillary would get on her soapbox and accuse Repbulicans of, "why, they are even accusing us of murder!"

The Clintons can fire all their help but eventually it will dawn on them that *they* are being rejected.  This is a prime example of how they think *everything* can be managed.  (Extrapolate that to national and world affairs.)

The crats (and the country) are realizing Obama is more likely to beat McCain then the  grifter couple.  As a result they are fleeing like sheep to a new and better point man.  They would vote for a rhinosaorus if it could "beat the Republicans".

10 years ago I remember talking to a lady I worked with and I exasperatingly exclaimed how I could not fathom how the Crats can support sleazy Clinton characters and reward them with the highest office in the world.  Her answerwas right on  - "well that's because that's all they [Democrats] have".

Not anymore.

It's a long time till the convention.  If OB can stay out of trouble he's looking good.
Don't count on the Clinton's to show real humility.  They'll pretend and she'll put on that phoney glued on smile but.....
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2008, 06:03:15 AM
If I have it right, the new campaign manager was the one who was involved with spiriting files out of Vince Foster's office the night he died/was killed.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 22, 2008, 06:53:22 AM
His and Her Finances
February 22, 2008; Page A14
Stonewalling and secrecy helped Bill and Hillary Clinton win the White House without a thorough enough vetting in 1992. Now they're trying to do it again, this time by not disclosing either their income tax returns or the donor list for the Clinton Foundation.

All of this has become the target of greater attention since Mrs. Clinton loaned her struggling campaign $5 million last month. She waited until after the crucial Super Tuesday voting to disclose this news, and initially described the loan as "my money." Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson then clarified that the cash had come from Mrs. Clinton's 50% "share" of the couple's joint resources.

Is America a great country or what? Only seven years ago the Clintons were swimming in legal bills. They've since cashed in on their celebrity to pay off a $2 million mortgage on their Washington D.C. home, and are now able to lend $5 million to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. The Senator has had her own success, earning more than $5 million for her "Living History" memoir. But the real income source has been the former President, who has been giving $450,000 speeches, and in general parlaying his political fame into personal riches.

Mr. Clinton is now trying to unwind a business relationship with billionaire pal Ron Burkle. This deal made him a partner -- along with the ruler of Dubai -- in the Yucaipa Global Fund. How much did Mr. Clinton earn from a partnership with men whose business interests might be affected by the policy actions of a President Hillary Clinton? The Clintons and their accountant know, but the public doesn't.

Mr. Clinton has also been raising cash for the Clinton Foundation, which funds his charitable activities and Presidential library. The foundation has raised more than $500 million, but Mr. Clinton has refused to release a donor list.

What we do know is that Mr. Clinton has allowed donors to use his influence to advance their business interests. That was the case with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, who won a huge mining concession in Kazakhstan after Mr. Clinton flew all the way to Almaty to introduce him to President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Bloomberg reported this week that Mr. Clinton has also been a frequent flyer on Mr. Giustra's corporate jet.

Mr. Giustra later donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and has pledged $100 million more. As the New York Times has reported, Mr. Clinton used his trip to praise Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to head the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, even as Senator Clinton was slamming the country's record on corruption and elections. If Mr. Clinton's personal business is going to affect U.S. foreign policy, he ought to tell the world who his benefactors are.

We've seen this nondisclosure before. During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit. Remember Red Bone and Jim Blair, and how she claimed she had made the investment on her own after reading the Wall Street Journal? For that matter, remember the other characters who provided cash for the Clintons in return for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, among other things?

Senator Clinton has said she'll make her tax returns public only if she wins the Democratic nomination. Mr. Clinton has said he'll disclose his future donors only if she is President. Once again they're trying to block disclosure until it's too late to inform the judgment of voters.

Mr. Obama has released his tax returns and has suggested Mrs. Clinton do the same because "the American people deserve to know where you get your income from." If the Clintons continue to keep his and her finances under wraps, the public would be wise, given their history, to assume they have something to hide.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on February 22, 2008, 07:29:51 AM
Being a politician on the national stage has certainly become a way to glorius riches hasn't it?

They all cash in after they leave.  I remember when Reagan went to Japan to speak for 2 million and how the crats tried to turn that into a scandal.  That's pennies compared to the riches these people get giving speeches, working as "lobbyists", consultants, and token positions in companies that need political connections.

I still wonder what the inside deal is with Chelsea and the hedge fund.

Where is the reporting for that?

Title: WSJ: The Clinton Runaround
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2008, 11:17:18 AM
Have you ever been to a government office to pick up a document -- your driver's license, say -- only to be sent to another window, where the clerk sends you to another window, where a clerk sends you back to the first to start all over again?

That's what it feels like these days asking Bill and Hillary Clinton about their White House records. Last weekend, USA Today reported that it had finally received some records from the Clinton Presidency four years after making a Freedom of Information Act request. Except that hundreds of pages pertaining to the handling of Bill Clinton's 140 last-minute pardons had been redacted or withheld by the helpful folks at the National Archives.

The Archives told USA Today that they had referred all the excluded and redacted material to lawyer Bruce Lindsey, the longtime keeper of Clinton secrets who's responsible for vetting the records. But Mr. Lindsey refused; apparently he doesn't want to second-guess the Archives. The Clintons themselves, meanwhile, say that everything is in the hands of the Archives and Mr. Lindsey, even though the Archives are acting pursuant to Bill's personal instructions, and those instructions include a provision to allow Mr. Lindsay to second-guess the Archivists.

If you can't easily follow all that, maybe that's the idea.

Last October, NBC's Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton about the White House records at a debate. Her answer: "The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves." So, while she is "fully in favor" of releasing the records from her time in the White House, those bureaucrats were holding things up. As for the records that her husband had requested remain under seal until 2012, as permitted under the law, "That's not my decision to make," she said. In other words, you'll have to ask at Window 14.

Then in February, Mr. Russert asked again, noting that the Archives had actually turned over 10,000 pages of documents about Hillary Clinton's schedule as first lady to the Clintons for their review, and they were sitting on them. Her answer was again, in effect, "It's not my job."

Those scheduling records are now due to be made public later this month, but the pardon records are stuck in limbo. The Archivists say that it's up to Mr. Lindsey, but also that Mr. Lindsey won't look at them. The Clintons say its up to the Archives, and Mr. Lindsey -- well, his window is closed, we guess.

Then there's the question of the donors to the Clinton Foundation, which raised more than $135 million last year alone. Hillary Clinton says she's in favor of a law that would require disclosure of the donors to Presidential foundations. So what about voluntarily disclosing while a candidate what she favors making mandatory after she's elected? "Well, you'll have to ask them," she said back in September, referring to the foundation. Who runs the foundation? Why, Bruce Lindsey, of course.

So, has Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mr. Lindsey and Bill do the disclosure that she claims to favor? "Well," she told Mr. Russert in New Hampshire in September, "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband." In other words, this window is now also closed -- at least until the election is over.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2008, 11:52:45 PM

And here's this:
Hillary's Other Fabrication

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:15 PM

By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann  Article Font Size   

Now that Hillary Clinton has been nailed in an outright fabrication of her role in Bosnia, it is time to remind ourselves of another, even more galling fantasy that Hillary tried to sell the voters.

After 9/11, Hillary had a problem. New Yorkers were desperately focused on their own needs for protection and they were saddled with a Senator who was not one of them -- an Arkansasn or was it a Chicagoan?

Interviewed on the "Today" show one week after 9/11, she spun an elaborate yarn. The kindest thing we could say was that it was a fantasy. Or a fabrication. She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea's life. But Chelsea told Talk magazine that she was in a friend's apartment four miles from ground zero when the first plane hit. Her friend called her, waking her up, and told her to turn on the TV. On television, she saw the second plane hit, disproving Hillary's claim that "she heard the plane hit. She heard it. She did."

So why did Hillary make up the story about Chelsea? Most likely to was because her co-senator (and implicit rival for the voter's affection), a real New Yorker Chuck Schumer spoke of his daughter, who attended Stuyvesant High School (Dick's alma mater) located next to the TRade Center, being at real risk on 9/11. Hillary needed to make herself part of the scene.

She invented the entire story on national television, the "Today" show, and didn't blink an eye. Her fabrication on the "Today" show was no unique foray. It is her standard M.O.. It gives us pause in evaluating all of her stories and calls into question her entire credibility.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Title: More from Morris
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2008, 12:58:51 PM
More from Morris:

Hillary's List of Lies

Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:40 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann  Article Font Size   

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Admit

She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

She opposed NAFTA at the time.

She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

The billing records showed up on their own.

She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

She was always a Yankees fan.

She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll?

OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others.

Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a “strong, decisive leader,” 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama, and 61 percent said it of Hillary. Obama has looked weak handling the Wright controversy.

His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad.

We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Title: Peggy Noonan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2008, 07:22:46 AM
Getting Mrs. Clinton
March 28, 2008
I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.

Not that her staff isn't policing them too. Mrs. Clinton's people are heavy-handed in that area, letting producers and correspondents know they're watching, weighing, may have to take this higher. There's too much of this in politics, but Hillary's campaign takes it to a new level.

It's not only the press. It's what I get as I walk around New York, which used to be thick with her people. I went to a Hillary fund-raiser at Hunter College about a month ago, paying for a seat in the balcony and being ushered up to fill the more expensive section on the floor, so frantic were they to fill seats.

I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who'd been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, "It doesn't seem to be working." She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who'd missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn't mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.

The other day a bookseller told me he'd been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn't for her anymore. It wasn't one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton's disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.

* * *

You'd think she'd pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she's doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that's the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.

On Wednesday a group of Mrs. Clinton's top donors sent a letter to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, warning her in language that they no doubt thought subtle but that reflected a kind of incompetent menace, that her statements on the presidential campaign may result in less money for Democratic candidates for the House. Ms. Pelosi had said that in her view the superdelegates should support the presidential candidate who wins the most pledged delegates in state contests. The letter urged her to "clarify" her position, which is "clearly untenable" and "runs counter" to the superdelegates' right to make "an informed, individual decision" about "who would be the party's strongest nominee." The signers, noting their past and huge financial support, suggested that Ms. Pelosi "reflect" on her comments and amend them to reflect "a more open view."

Barack Obama's campaign called it inappropriate and said Mrs. Clinton should "reject the insinuation." But why would she? All she has now is bluster. Her supporters put their threat in a letter, not in a private meeting. By threatening Ms. Pelosi publicly, they robbed her of room to maneuver. She has to defy them or back down. She has always struck me as rather grittier than her chic suits, high heels and unhidden enthusiasm may suggest. We'll see.

What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can't trace the line from "this moment's difficulties" to "my triumphant end." But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don't lose. She can't figure out how to win, and she can't accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn't know how he did it!)

She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "Wag the Dog," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.

* * *

What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: "Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."

Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, "I get it."
Title: David Brooks
Post by: ccp on March 28, 2008, 07:54:57 AM
Limbaugh's strategy is working for now.  Leave Clinton in the race and this is continuing to hurt the Crats.  But this will be all resolved by the time of election.  And the polls that show some crats would not vote for either BO or Clinton mean nothing.  Come november they will all vote for whoever the crat candidate is.  Remember Republicans are worse than Nazis in the eyes of most crats.

With that said I still disagree with Rush.  Anytime anyone has a chance to get rid of the Clintons, do so.  This country has to get them off the stage.   They are damaging this country.  Knock them out once and for all.  Get rid of them.  Go away.  Stop torturing us with their sick personalities. 

An excerpt from David Brooks says it all:

"For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head."

The full piece:

****The Long Defeat

Published: March 25, 2008

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.
Skip to next paragraph

David Brooks
Go to Columnist Page »
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web

First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company****
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2008, 11:10:17 AM
                     Hillary Clinton goes to her doctor for a check-up, only to find out that she's pregnant. She is furious... Here she is in the middle of her first run for President as Senator for New York .... now this has happened to her. She calls home, gets Bill on the phone and immediately starts screaming:

'How could you have let this happen? With all that's going on right now, you go and get me pregnant! How could you? I can't believe this! I've just found out I'm five  weeks pregnant and it's all your fault! Well, what have you got to say?'

There is nothing but silence on the phone. She screams again, 'Did you hear me?'

Finally she hears Bill's very, very quiet voice in a barely audible whisper, he asks: 'Who's speaking?'
Title: Morris: Clinton financial incentive to not quit
Post by: ccp on April 03, 2008, 08:10:48 AM
Apr 2 2008
Dick's Articles

***Hillary Clinton’s campaign currently owes vendors $8 million, exclusive of the $5 million she owes herself. She cannot use general election money to pay for this debt. If she begins to be anything less than certain that she will stay in up to the convention, she won’t raise any money and will be stuck with the debt. She also realizes that it is only by projecting an almost manic air of certainty that she has any chance at all of hanging onto super delegates. The first whiff they get of a withdrawal, they will all run screaming to Obama to get on the late train. Don’t think that Hillary is delusional. She knows she’s lost but she has no choice but to play the rest of the game. To fold now would leave her in an untenable situation.***

They need cash.  Not only to pay off their debts but to rake it in for future plans of inflicting themselves on the Democrats and this nation.

What a joke that Bill Clinton is outraged that Richardson told him "five" times he wouldn't do what he did [come out for Obama]
He and his accomplice are the world's biggest G..M liars and are ruining this country by making it respectable to lie incessantly.

Our children grow up being taught that this behavior is ok.  They are pigs as far as I am concerned

Hopefully after she loses their power with the Dems will forever dimisnish and they will just fade out over the years.

Title: A Health Care fib
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 06, 2008, 08:27:39 AM

April 5, 2008
Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”

The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.

Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.

As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.

“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”

Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. At one March rally in Wyoming, for instance, she referred to Ms. Bachtel, a 35-year-old who managed a Pizza Hut, as a young, uninsured minimum-wage worker, saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”

Mrs. Clinton does not name Ms. Bachtel or the hospital in her speeches. As she tells it, the woman was turned away twice by a local hospital when she was experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy. “The hospital said, ‘Well, you don’t have insurance.’ She said, ‘No, I don’t.’ They said, ‘Well, we can’t see you until you give $100.’ She said, ‘Where am I going to get $100?’

“The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn’t save the baby.”

Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said.

The hospital would not provide details about the woman’s case, citing privacy concerns; she died two weeks after the stillbirth at a medical center in Columbus.

“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.”

Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday. That brought it to the attention of The Daily Sentinel in Pomeroy, Ohio, which published an article on Friday.

Neither paper named the hospital or challenged Mrs. Clinton’s account.
Title: WSJ: Clintons' $109 Million
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2008, 07:42:27 AM

Clinton Tax Lessons
April 7, 2008; Page A12
New York Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband spend a lot of time on the Presidential trail deploring the "wealthy" and "well-connected." As their newly released tax records for 2000 to 2007 show, they know of whom they speak.

The former, and perhaps future, first couple earned $109 million over the past eight years, putting them among the top .01% of taxpayers. Apparently the Bush years haven't been a Depression era for everyone. The bulk of the Clintons' income came from speech-making ($51.9 million) and book-writing ($29.6 million), and it's hard to begrudge their desire to cash in on the Presidency after toiling for so many years in public service. The Clintons are hardly unique in showing that in today's Washington you can do very, very well after you've done good.

Senator Hillary Clinton
We can also now understand why the couple took so long to release their returns, and are still reluctant to release other information. Their political status has given them access to wealthy folks who've helped make them rich. For example, Mr. Clinton raked in as much as $15 million working as an adviser and rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa firm. We're not sure what advice Mr. Clinton gave but it must have been fabulous. The former President also took in $3.3 million in consulting fees from InfoUSA CEO Vinod Gupta, who has also helped fund Mrs. Clinton's White House bid. These are not opportunities that fall into every American's lap.

Meanwhile, the Clintons also made liberal use of the charitable deduction, claiming $10.2 million in charitable giving over the eight years. Intriguingly, nearly all the donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has disbursed only half the money. The Clintons can thus use the foundation for, er, strategic giving, such as the $100,000 it donated last year to a local South Carolina library – the day after Mrs. Clinton debated in that key primary state. There are other examples of such politically targeted philanthropy, and it's worth noting that most of the foundation's disbursements came only after Mrs. Clinton announced her Presidential run.

Similar conflict-of-interest questions apply to the separate William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, for which the couple has so far refused to release a list of donors. Such a list could contain more of the likes of Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra, who took Mr. Clinton along on a trip to Kazakhstan as a character reference, won a Kazakh mining concession, and gave more than $30 million to the foundation. The Clintons have an obligation to let voters see who their foundation donors are.

Like other Americans during this tax season, the Clintons have also had to endure the complexity of the tax code. Their 2006 return alone totaled 67 pages. While they can afford a smart accountant to sift through all those forms, would it be too optimistic to think Mrs. Clinton might be inspired by her tax experience to promote tax reform?

Alas, yes. Senator Clinton's main tax proposal is to repeal the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, raising rates to the levels of the Clinton Presidency. "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them," Mrs. Clinton explained.

With friends like Mr. Burkle, clearly they didn't. But her higher tax rates wouldn't merely hit those who make $109 million; they'd soak middle-class families that make $100,000 or $200,000 a year and hardly feel "rich." If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates. She and her husband can afford it.
Title: Clinton Foundation Secrets
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2008, 08:26:55 AM
Clinton Foundation Secrets
April 25, 2008; Page A14

Transparency is a popular word in this presidential election, with all three candidates finally having released their tax returns. Yet the public still hasn't seen the records of an institution with some of the biggest potential for special-interest mischief: The William J. Clinton Foundation.

Bill Clinton established that body in 1997 while still President. It has since raised half-a-billion dollars, which has been spent on Mr. Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas and global philanthropic initiatives. The mystery remains its donors, and whether these contributors might one day seek to call in their chits with a President Hillary Clinton.

That's no small matter given the former first couple's history. Yet Mr. Clinton says he won't violate the "privacy" of donors by disclosing their names, even if his wife wins the Oval Office. What is already in the public record should make that secrecy untenable, however:

Chicago bankruptcy lawyer William Brandt Jr. pledged $1 million for the Clinton library in May 1999, at the same time the Justice Department was investigating whether he'd lied about a Clinton fundraising event. The Clinton DOJ cleared him a few months later.

Loral Space and Communications then-CEO, Bernard Schwartz, committed to $1 million in 2000, at the same time the firm was being investigated for improperly sending technology to China. Loral agreed to a $14 million fine during the Bush Administration.

A major investor in cellular firm NextWave – Bay Harbour Management – pledged $1 million in 1999, when NextWave was waiting to see if the Clinton FCC would allow it to keep its cellular licenses. NextWave didn't immediately get its licenses, and Bay Harbour never made good on its pledge.

And let's not forget the $450,000 contribution from Denise Rich, which was followed by Mr. Clinton's pardon of her fugitive husband, Marc Rich.

American citizens are limited to donating $2,300 to presidential candidates, but there are no limits on gifts to presidential foundations. We don't think there should be limits, but without disclosure the potential for political conflicts, real or apparent, is extensive. Were it not for some enterprising journalism by the New York Sun in 2004, for example, we might not know that notorious trial lawyer William Lerach had made a donation to Mr. Clinton's foundation. Lerach has since been indicted for, and pled guilty to, fraud. Would the Clinton Administration have pursued a similar fraud case?

Presidential candidates also aren't allowed to accept campaign checks from foreigners, but, again, no such restrictions apply to foundations. We know that donations to the Clinton Foundation have come from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, and the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Brunei. Wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen have also given big.

Mr. Clinton has also accepted money from a Chinese Internet company, Alibaba, which aids the Beijing government in censoring the Web. Most recently, one of Alibaba's Chinese homepages posted a "most wanted" list of Tibetan rioters, with pictures and a phone number for informants to call. Mrs. Clinton has condemned the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, but her husband notably hasn't returned the Alibaba money.

No doubt all of these donors would say they gave their money without a single string attached, and Mr. Clinton rightly points out that other former Presidents keep their library donors under wraps. If Mr. Clinton were merely a former President building a library for history's sake, we might not worry. But he is a potential first husband whose spouse could influence countless decisions, foreign and domestic.

Mr. Clinton seems to understand the value of his mere association. Consider his relationship with Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who took Mr. Clinton on a trip to Kazakhstan in 2005, won a Kazakh mining concession, and then committed to donate more than $130 million to the Clinton Foundation. In a letter we recently published, Mr. Giustra insists his gift was entirely philanthropic and that he won the Kazakh concession on the merits.

More recently, we've also learned Mr. Clinton arranged for Mr. Giustra to meet with Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. A Canadian company that Mr. Giustra's firm was advising later acquired interests in Colombian oil fields. Some of the money Mr. Giustra has given the Clinton Foundation has been earmarked for development projects in Colombia.

How many favors has Mr. Clinton done for foreign donors? There's no way of knowing. The former President insists he's aware of no conflicts. Notably, however, donations to the Clinton Foundation soared as Mrs. Clinton neared a presidential run – to $135 million in 2006, 70% more than the year before. Somebody seems to think there is value in being generous to the Clintons.

Mrs. Clinton says the foundation is her husband's business, not hers. But as she has said in the past, a Clinton Presidency is two for the price of one. Americans deserve to know who has been donating to the Clinton Foundation.

Title: Hillary lost because of what she is not because of any campaign
Post by: ccp on May 08, 2008, 09:39:09 AM
this whole concept that Hillary could and should win if only she runs the right campaign is wrong.  Hillary lost because of the nature of who she is.  She is a chornic bullshit artist, dishones, selfish to the core as her "skinny" Santa husband.  She lost because she has very high negatives because of who she is and her flawed character - period.

This whole  concept that no matter who she is the American electorate can forever be manipulated to like her is flawed. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

Look - to all Clinton lovers - feminist chicks included - your candidate is dishonest, fraudulent, selfish, narcissistic, and hated by 45% of all Americans forvever.  They have to stop ruining forever American politics.  We have to get back to at least some semblence of character.  Some semblence of honesty and forthrightness.  Bo is trying to come across this way (although I don't believe him either) but he is absolutely right that Americans are craving good, decent honest leaders.  The Clintons are not, have never been, and will never be that.

***By KAREN TUMULTY 50 minutes ago

For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me."

It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:

1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability - and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse:

2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:

3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."

By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because:

4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.

Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million - plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House - first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:

5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable.

Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner. View this article on***
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2008, 10:01:38 AM
The Clinton Divorce
May 9, 2008; Page A16
No, we don't mean Bill and Hillary. We mean the separation now under way between the Clintons and the Democratic Party. Like all divorces after lengthy unions, this one is painful and has had its moments of reconciliation, but after Tuesday a split looks inevitable. The long co-dependency is over.

Truth be told, this was always a marriage more of convenience than love. The party's progressives never did like Bill Clinton's New Democrat ways, but after Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis they needed his epic political gifts to win back the White House. They hated him for their loss of Congress in 1994, but they tolerated Dick Morris and welfare reform to keep the presidency in 1996.

The price was that they had to put their ethics in a blind Clinton trust. Whitewater and the missing billing records, Webb Hubbell, cattle futures and "Red" Bone, the Lincoln Bedroom, Johnny Chung and the overseas fund-raising scandals, Paula Jones and lying under oath, Monica and the meaning of "is." Democrats, or all of them this side of Joe Lieberman and Pat Moynihan, defended the Clintons through it all. Everything was dismissed as a product of the "Republican attack machine," an invention of the "Clinton haters," or "just about sex."

Democrats and the media did make a fleeting attempt at liberation when Bill Clinton left office after 2000 amid the tawdry pardons. Barney Frank, the most fervent of the Clinton defenders throughout the 1990s, even called the pardons a "betrayal" and "contemptuous." More than a few Democrats also noticed that George W. Bush's main campaign theme in 2000 was restoring "dignity" and "honor" to the Oval Office, and that Al Gore had somehow lost despite two-thirds of voters saying the U.S. was moving in the right direction.

But Hillary Clinton had also won a Senate seat that year, and she had presidential ambitions of her own. So the trial separation was brief. Democrats acquiesced as the first couple put their own money man, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic National Committee. As the Bush years rolled on and John Kerry lost, they watched Hillary build her machine and plot a Clinton restoration. They watched, too, as the New York Senator did her own triangulating on Iraq, first voting for it, then supporting it before turning against it as the election neared. Party regulars fell in line behind her, and her nomination was said to be "inevitable."

Then something astonishing happened. A new star emerged in Barack Obama, a man who had Bill Clinton's political talent but Hillary's liberal convictions. He had charisma, a flair for raising money, and he held out the chance of a 2008 Democratic landslide. Something more than a return to the trench warfare of the 1990s seemed possible – perhaps the revival of a liberal majority, circa 1965.

More remarkable still, Democrats supporting Mr. Obama had a revelation about Clintonian mores. David Geffen, channeling William Safire, declared that "everybody in politics lies," but the Clintons "do it with such ease, it's troubling." Ted Kennedy was shocked to see the Clintons play the race card in South Carolina. The media discovered their secrecy over tax records and Clinton Foundation donors, while columnists were appalled to hear her assail Mr. Obama for his associations with radical bomber William Ayers. Listen closely and you could almost hear Bob Dole asking, "Where's the outrage?"

By the time Mrs. Clinton made her famous claim about dodging Bosnian sniper fire, Democrats and their media friends no longer called it a mere gaffe, as they once might have. This time the remark was said to be emblematic of her entire political career. The same folks who had believed her about Whitewater and the rest now claimed she never tells the truth about anything.

As the scales suddenly fell from liberal eyes, the most striking statistic was the one in this week's North Carolina exit poll. Asked if they considered Mrs. Clinton "honest and trustworthy," no fewer than 50% of Democratic primary voters said she was not. In Indiana, the figure was merely 45%.

Slowly but surely, these Prisoners of Bill and Hill are now walking away, urging Mrs. Clinton to leave the race. Chuck Schumer damns her with faint support by saying any decision is up to her. Columnists from the New York Times, which endorsed her when she looked inevitable, now demand that she exit so as not to help John McCain. With Mr. Obama to ride, they no longer need the Arkansas interlopers.

If the Clintons play to their historic form, they will ignore all this for as long as they can. They will fight on, hoping that something else turns up about Mr. Obama before the convention. Or they'll try to play the Michigan and Florida cards. Or they'll unleash Harold Ickes on the superdelegates and suggest that if Mr. Obama loses in November she'll be back in 2012 and her revenge will be, well, Clintonian.

The difference between now and the 1990s, however, is that this time the Clinton foes aren't the "vast right-wing conspiracy." This time the conspirators are fellow Democrats. It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.
Title: Dowd snaps on Hillibllaries
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 28, 2008, 07:07:33 AM
Can He Take a Frisk?
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Yahoo! Buzz
Published: May 28, 2008
After “Rahmbo” Emanuel, the Illinois congressman dubbed “the hostage negotiator” by the Obama forces, fails to talk Hillary down, Barack Obama knows that he is left with one final roll of the dice. He sets up a secret meeting with Bill Clinton in neutral territory at Rahm’s hideaway office in the Capitol.

Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Maureen Dowd

Go to Columnist Page » Bill arrives two hours late, red-faced and truculent.

“If you brought me over here to cry uncle, shame on you, Barack Obama. You and your press lackeys are engaged in a cover-up even though Hillary’s winnin’ the popular vote and the general election.”

“Hey, Bill, please, stop wagging your finger at me. Call off Harold Ickes and the Hillaryland Huns. You’re right. I can’t win without her. The two of us can clean McCain’s grandfather clock.”

“Goshalmighty. You could knock me over with a hair on a biscuit, Barack. Smart move, everybody wins. Now Hillary won’t be the skunk at your Denver garden party.”

“That’s why they call me: No Drama Obama.”

“You’re a natural, like me. I was for hope; you are for hope. I was for change; you are for change. I took the Camelot sword from J.F.K.; you took it from Teddy. I would have been with you from the beginning except for that little deal I had with Hillary. She’s going to be so relieved that she doesn’t have to return to the back rows of the Senate with everybody there snickering that she flopped. And if something happens to you, God forbid, she’s right there in the Situation Room, ready to go at 3 a.m. on her Day One.”

“Yeah. I really want to announce this quickly, so let’s clear up a few niggling details.”

“Thank goodness you’ve got Jim Johnson frisking me. He’s the guy who missed all the baggage weighing down Geraldine Ferraro’s husband.”

“Mr. President, I’m going to run a very transparent administration, everything on C-Span. So I’ll need a full accounting of your foundation donors.”

“Oh, sure thing, buddy, from this day forward.”

“No, Bill, we’ll need full disclosure of your business dealings for the last eight years. And you can no longer accept Arab millions — not if I’m going to talk tough to them about oil. I can’t send Hillary on diplomatic missions to the Middle East if you’re taking money from Dubai and Kuwait. And no more trips to Kazakhstan. I wouldn’t want to have to put a Geiger-counter bracelet on you to check that you’re not involved in another shady uranium deal.”

“Ha, ha.”

“We need to know where that $11 million came from that you guys loaned your campaign. And the $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. And you must spill about any offshore accounts in the Caymans. And no more big-money speeches, Bill. You guys have already cashed in for more than $100 million.”

“You’re right, Barack, no more speeches. Just conversations. If a C.E.O. interviews me in front of a small audience, that’s fine. But no speeches.”

“I’m not debating the meaning of the word ‘speech,’ Bill. We’re going to have an administration so squeaky clean that it makes Jimmy Carter look like Marc Rich. All your trips abroad will have to be authorized by a higher authority.”

“The State Department? Fine, I’ll check with them.”


“Oh, no. Not that.”

“Yes, Michelle. She’ll have you on a much shorter leash, Bill, and it’s not so fun. There’ll be no more Ron Air, no Burkling and Binging. Eight long years of Michelle watching your every move. No eruptions of any kind. And that big telescope in the Naval Observatory is off limits. We’re going to be a family-values administration. And in the campaign, we’ll use you the way Al Gore did: Not at all. No more Bill YouTube meltdowns.”

“You know, Barack, the more I’m seein’ what you’ve got in mind for me, the more I’m worryin’ that Hillary’s just not cut out for this job. You don’t want her glomming on to everythin’. Since she’s almost even with the delegates, she’ll want to go halfsies in the government. She’ll want to run foreign policy, cause you know nothin’ about that. And legal stuff, because you never practiced real law. And economic policy, ’cause she connected better with working-class voters. And everything to do with white people, of course. I’ve got to level with you, man. Hillary’s a lot of work. And that Kathleen Sebelius is terrific and has those twinkly eyes.”

“So, Bill, you’re not wedded to Hillary being vice president? You won’t sabotage my campaign if I pick somebody I like, I mean, like, if I pick somebody else?”

“Nah. Now that I see the big picture, the idea of Hillary as your No. 2 was always a fairy tale.”
Title: Noonan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2008, 04:37:04 AM
I love Peggy Noonan, but in my opinion she has been getting a bit wooly headed of late.  There's some of that on display here, but there are good points too.



Recoil Election
June 6, 2008; Page A11
It is the most amazing thing that a young black man who was just a few short years ago unknown to most of his countrymen—really, unknown—could, this week, win the presidential nomination of one of our two great political parties. It is even more amazing that this historic news could be overshadowed by the personal drama and spite of the woman who lost to him.

M.E. Cohen 
I like it that she spent the campaign accusing America of being sexist, of treating her differently because she is a woman, and then, when she lacked the grace to congratulate the victor, she sent her stewards out to tell the press she just needs time, it's so emotional. In other words, she needs space because she's a woman.

A friend sent, by instant message, the AP flash that ran at 16:56 ET on 06-03-2008. There it was suddenly on my screen:

"*** WASHINGTON (AP)—Obama clinches Democratic nomination, making him first black candidate to lead his party."

A great old-school bulletin, and of course it carried a huge and moving message. It is good when barriers fall; it's good when possibilities seem to open up to more people, especially the young, who are always watching. (That's what's wrong with them, they're always watching, and we're always doing terrible things, like, say, not congratulating the winner on the night he won.)

But what I thought of when the friend sent the flash was something another friend told me months ago. It was the night Mr. Obama won Alabama. My friend was watching on TV, in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, looked, saw "Obama Wins" and "Alabama." She said, "Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school." She said, "That's where they used the hoses." Suddenly my friend saw it new. That's the place they used the water hoses on the civil rights marchers crossing the bridge. And now look. The black man thanking Alabama for his victory.

What kind of place makes a change like this? Only a great nation. We should love it tenderly every day of our lives.

* * *

We will hear a lot of tasteful tributes this weekend to Hillary Clinton's grit and fortitude. The Washington-based media may go a little over the top, but only out of relief. They know her well and recoil at what she stands for. They also know they don't like her, so to balance it out they'll gush.

But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week.

Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her—the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him.

We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.

They had a great and roaring fight, a state-by-state struggle unprecedented in the history of presidential primaries. They created the truly national primary. They brought 36 million people to the polls, including the young, minorities and first-time voters. They brought a kind of dogged brio to the year.

All of this is impressive, but more than that, they threw off Clintonism. They threw off the idea that corruption is part of the game, an acceptable fact. They threw off the idea that dynasticism was an unstoppable dynamic in modern politics, that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton could, would, go on forever. They said: "No, that is not the way we do it."

They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.

But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.

May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party.

* * *

Should he make her his vice president? He shouldn't, and he won't.

The reasons:

The only ones who could force him to do it are party elders, and they don't like Mrs. Clinton. They're the ones who finally forced her from the race. Their antipathy was not apparent when she was inevitable. It is obvious now.

She would never be content to be vice president. She'd be plotting against him from day one. She'd put poison in his tea.

She brings Bill.

She undercuts the cleanness of Obama's message. She doesn't turn the page, she is the page.

She would give Republicans something to get excited about. She will revivify them. They're not excited about Mr. McCain, but they could become excited about opposing her.

Her presence on the ticket would force the party to have two breakthrough moments when a rule of political life, and life in general, is: one breakthrough at a time.

He doesn't need her. He needs a boring white man. Because he's an interesting black man. He needs a sober, experienced, older establishment player who will be respected by the press, the first responders of the political game. They'll set the tone in which the choice is celebrated, or not. He needs someone like Sam Nunn. Or, actually, Sam Nunn. He could throw a wild pass at Jim Webb because he has a real-guy, Southern, semi-working-class persona, and a Scots-Irish grit and chippiness. He is from important Virginia, has Vietnam boots and is moderate.

Choosing Mrs. Clinton would make Mr. Obama look weak. No one would believe he picked her because he respected or liked her. They'd think he was appeasing her. This is not something he can afford! And in any case some people cannot be appeased. Voters would assume she and her people did their voodoo—I have 18 million voters!—and he fell for it. She doesn't have 18 million voters, she got 18 million votes. It is telling the way she thinks of them, as if they are working-class automatons awaiting her command.

As for reports of their rage, there are always dead-enders, and frantic lovers of this candidate or that. This goes under the larger heading "lonely people." But there's reason to think, and some Democratic insiders do think it, that a lot of the supposed pro-Clinton furor is ginned up on Web sites by the Clinton campaign, and even manufactured by the Clinton campaign, to prove Clinton loyalists are real and their demands must be met. In any case, you can see how Mrs. Clinton views her supposed working-class heroes by what she is doing with them now: using them as a bargaining chip to get whatever she wants.

Democrats this year have the winning fever, and Democrats will come out. By November they will be united.

Also, he doesn't like her. He recoils. Just like his party.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 07, 2008, 12:14:58 PM
America "dodged a bullet" for now.  Of course, it is far from over with the Clintons.  Notice she says she is *suspending* her campaign.

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate...."

Dick Morris explains:

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

Published on on June 6, 2008.

Why won’t Hillary just concede that she has lost and pull out of the race? Why does she persist in keeping her delegates in line for her and not releasing them to Obama? Why does she feign party unity while, in fact, undermining it?

The Clintons never do anything without a lot of thinking and planning. There is no benign explanation for her maneuvers. They have several options that they are deliberately keeping open by their increasingly awkward positioning. Here’s what they’re up to:

1. The Obama Stumbles Option

As Hillary says, June is “early” in politics when the convention is not to be held until the end of August, unusually late for a Democratic conclave. And, as Tip O’Neill says “a week is a long time in politics.” So is three months.

Rumors abound about incriminating material on Obama, the potential for misstep is amplified now that he adjusts to a new task of taking on McCain, who knows how many other preachers there are in the closet? Hillary’s skilled force of private detectives, who we once called the secret police, are doubtless diving into garbage dumpsters all over America to come up with whatever they can.

Hillary wants to be there to exploit any mistakes. She will be watching and waiting. Suppose Obama flubs a line on the campaign trail or damaging material emerges from the Rezko prosecution? Hillary will indicate her continued availability as an alternative. Remember that superdelegates can change their minds anytime they want to. Now they are leaving Hillary to back Obama, the winner, but they could easily go the other way. By not releasing her pledged delegates, she remains within striking distance of the nomination if an Obama faux pas leads to an exodus of superdelegates from his camp.

2. Hillary for VP

By remaining a force at the convention, Hillary might be in a position to bail out a faltering Obama campaign by going on the ticket. There is no love lost between the two candidates. Hillary knows that Obama will not choose her voluntarily as his running mate. But if Obama falters, he might just need the shot in the arm Hillary would represent. By remaining in the shadows as a potential threat to wrest away the nomination, she might leverage her position to make Obama put her on the ticket.

She wants to be VP in case Obama loses so she can be positioned for 2012 and in case he wins so she can shoot for the stars in 2016. And, she doesn’t want anyone else to have the job so as not to create a potential rival.

3. The I Told You So Option

By remaining viable and keeping her delegates, Hillary stays in play through the convention. Her aides and associates can be counted on to dump on Obama subtly and, often, anonymously, as he moves forward. If Obama loses the election, and did not take her on his ticket, she can run as the “I told you so” candidate in 2012, much as Ronald Reagan capitalized on Gerald Ford’s defeat in 1976, after Reagan had unsuccessfully sought the nomination, to bolster his credentials in 1980.

4. Paying Off Her Debts

By staying, at least partially, in the game, Hillary can continue to raise money and pay off her debts. And she can hold out a bargaining position to force Obama to do more and more to help her to raise money. Debts to her vendors are one thing. She can always raise funds to pay them off in the future. But the election law makes it illegal for her to pay herself back any sum above $250,000 after the Democratic Convention. Since she has lent her campaign at least $11 million, she wants to get as much of it back as possible before the convention deadline.

Hillary may set her candidacy aside for the moment. But her fortunes will continue to rise and fall inversely with Obama’s. Should he hit a rough patch, Hillary’s numbers are bound to improve, strengthening her bargaining position for funds or for the VP slot or, possibly giving her enough momentum to reopen the contest.

That’s her game.

Jun 6 2008
Copyright © 2008 | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Login
Title: The Clintons narcissism (they are sick folks)
Post by: ccp on June 08, 2008, 08:25:29 AM

I don't know exactly where on the narcissism spectrum the Clinton's fall but it is frightening to think how this country keeps getting dragged through their psychopathology. While BO's politics are not at all my cup of tea at least there is nothing to suggest he is sick or nuts like the Clintons obviously are:

***Malignant narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about Kernberg's theory. For the instrumental song by Rush, see Malignant Narcissism (song).

Otto Kernberg described malignant narcissism as a syndrome characterized by a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial features, paranoid traits, and ego-syntonic aggression. Other symptoms may include an absence of conscience, a psychological need for power, and a sense of importance (grandiosity). Pollock wrote: "The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism."[1]

Kernberg claimed that malignant narcissism should be considered part of a spectrum of pathological narcissism, which he saw as ranging from the Cleckley's antisocial character (today's psychopath) at the high end of severity, to malignant narcissism, to NPD at the low end.[2] Kernberg wrote that malignant narcissism can be differentiated from psychopathy because of the malignant narcissists' capacity to internalize "both aggressive and idealized superego precursors, leading to the idealization of the aggressive, sadistic features of the pathological grandiose self of these patients." According to Kernberg, the psychopaths' paranoid stance against external influences makes them unwilling to internalize even the values of the "aggressor," while malignant narcissists "have the capacity to admire powerful people, and can depend on sadistic and powerful but reliable parental images." Malignant narcissists, in contrast to psychopaths, are also said to be capable of developing "some identification with other powerful idealized figures as part of a cohesive 'gang' ... which permits at least some loyalty and good object relations to be internalized." The malignant narcissist's main differences in impulse control from the psycopath is in the area of desired outcomes. While the psychopath displays more anti-social features, the malignant narcissist desires "unlimited power," a trait that is deemed positive in many capitalistic societies. It is possible for the malignant narcissist to move above and beyond their contemporaries, and make a postive contribution to society (although rarely is this the case). The malignant narcissist will attempt to make full use of their capabilities.

Malignant narcissism is related to narcissistic regression in infancy, in which the infant sees themself as the "center of the world." Whereas most infants grow out of this stage, the malignant narcissist is thought to be trapped in this period throughout their lifetime.

Malignant narcissism is highlighted as a key area when it comes to the study of mass, sexual, and serial murder.[3][4][citation needed]

[edit] See also

    * Antisocial Personality Disorder
    * Narcissism (psychology)
    * Narcissistic Personality Disorder
    * Narcissistic rage
    * Psychopath
    * Schizoid Personality Disroder

[edit] External links

    * Malignant Narcissism vs. Psychopathy
    * Narcissism and co-morbidity with other disorders
    * Is he/she a narcissist?

[edit] References

   1. ^ Pollock, G. H. (1978), Process and affect, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 59, 255–276.
   2. ^ Kernberg, O. F. (1994), The Psychotherapeutic Management of Psychopathic, Narcissistic, and Paranoid Transferences.
   3. ^ Gerberth, V., & Turco, R. (1997) Antisocial personality disorder, sexual sadism, malignant narcissism, and serial murder. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 49-60.
   4. ^ ^ Turco, R. (2001) Child serial murder-psychodynamics: closely watched shadows, Journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 29(2), 331–338.***

Title: WSJ: Bill's donor list
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2008, 10:59:44 PM
This is not about former President Bill Clinton's shakedown of the sheikhs. They can take care of themselves, Clinton Foundation or no Clinton Foundation.

APThis is also not about Hillary Clinton's vulnerability to her husband's donors. She can tell him to "go stuff it," which people say she's been doing for a long time anyway. Rest assured, the next secretary of state will not shirk her diplomatic obligations for the benefit of some scummy foreign mineral magnate's uranium.

What I've been tying to discern about the Clinton Foundation is why -- aside from the annual fancy party in New York -- foreign governments, other foundations and charities have given money to fund what they already do themselves.

I understand why McDonald's of central Arkansas would make a contribution to Mr. Clinton's present career. He has spent so much cash on Big Macs over three decades that they actually owe it to him. But I fail to grasp why the "I Won't Cheat" foundation gave a donation to Bill's charity. He isn't exactly an ideal poster boy.

The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
None of these gifts were really big money, at least not for Mr. Clinton, for whom a million dollars isn't at all big anymore. But the scrounging operation seems to have dug down very deep to pull in thousand-dollar gifts.

There were four United Way contributions, one from the national outfit, three from local branches. Since when is the Clinton Foundation one of the approved charities of the United Way?

Then there are more serious questions about operating charities. What was the purpose of a contribution by the National Opera of Paris? Or of hospitals themselves in strained circumstances, like Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn and Arkansas Children's Hospital?

The University of Cambridge and Liverpool University in the United Kingdom threw into the pot from the other side of the pond. American universities like Tufts, Columbia, Georgetown, Iowa State, Texas, Brown, Rensselaer Polytechnic, UCLA and its school of public health all gave, plus the University of Judaism with a whopping sum between $100,000 and $250,000. (Is Bill Clinton now supporting studies in theology?) Do these educational institutions have such deep pockets to share with Bill Clinton's ego?

On the donor list are also the names of the charities we all give to generically: Human Rights Watch (well, not me), Feed the Children, and the Hunger Project. The foundation also receives funding from the International Bank for Recovery and Development of the World Bank, and the World Health Organization. They have their own, far-reaching projects. Why would they give cash to charitable work for which Mr. Clinton is at most a matchmaker?

In Today's Opinion Journal


In Hoc Anno DominiCongress Targets PhilanthropyAn Ethanol Bailout?


Business World: Get Ready for a Lost Decade
– Holman W. Jenkins Jr.


Defense Spending Would Be a Great Stimulus
– Martin Feldstein

Clinton's Donor List Raises Lots of Questions
– Martin PeretzHow Bush Can Transcend the Shoe Thrower
– Mark BowdenA Christmas Tale – 1919
– Hans von SpakovskyThere's a certain looseness here that spreads downwards: District 1199 of the Service Employees International Union gave old comrade Bill somewhere in the range of half a million bucks. And then spreads upwards, so to speak: Citi gave him from $1 million to $5 million. Perhaps Citi's gift was just a pledge. In that case, is Treasury now paying up?

Many are focused on the contributions of the Arab states. Mr. Clinton started his charity in 1997 with four years to go in his presidency, a period when no American law provided for the most elementary public reporting of the enterprise. Still, the fact that Saudi Arabia is on the donor list comes as no surprise.

What we now know is that Mr. Clinton was indiscriminating when it came to accepting cash from all sorts of countries. He took money from poor countries like Jamaica, and more prosperous countries like Italy. He dipped into the Irish Aid Fund and the Swedish Postal Lottery for big money, and for small money from the Social Economic Council of the Netherlands. And then there was an especially strange source from which he schnorrered: Citgo, Hugo Chávez's oil company. Even if the revolucion didn't gain points for this, it is unseemly for an American president to ask the energy company of the Venezuelan dictatorship for spare cash.

So where did all this fund-raised money go? Wouldn't you want to know to which philanthropic undertaking the King of Saudi Arabia and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques committed himself? This information is not in the report -- and it doesn't look like President-elect Obama has any interest in pushing for further disclosure. Maybe the king just gave to general expenses.

Mr. Peretz is editor in chief of The New Republic.
Title: WSJ
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2009, 07:29:30 AM
These columns have long believed that a President deserves the cabinet members he wants, barring some major dereliction. So if Barack Obama wants to make Hillary and Bill Clinton part of his governing team, that's his business. We can only hope he understands the Clinton family business he's taking on.

APTake Mr. Clinton's post-Presidential fund-raising, the scope of which he finally disclosed in late December after years of refusing and under pressure from the Obama transition. Amid the holidays and economic news, this window on the Clinton political method has received less attention than it deserves. Here is the spectacle of a former President circling the globe to raise at least $492 million over 10 years for his foundation -- much of it from assorted rogues, dictators and favor-seekers. We are supposed to believe that none of this -- and none of his future fund-raising -- will have any influence on Mrs. Clinton's conduct as Secretary of State.

The silence over this is itself remarkable. When Henry Kissinger was invited merely to co-chair the 9/11 Commission, the political left went bonkers about his foreign clients. In this case we have a Secretary of State nominee whose husband may have raised more than $60 million from various Middle East grandees, and Washington reacts with a yawn. Maybe someone will even ask about it at her nomination hearing today.

A Senator should ask, because this has the potential to complicate life for the new President. All the more so because under terms of his agreement with Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton will be able to keep raising foreign cash as long as the donors send the checks to a Clinton entity other than the "Clinton Global Initiative." Instead of being immediately disclosed, future donations will only be made public once a year and the exact amounts and dates of previous donations will never be made public.

While Mr. Clinton will submit some donations from foreign governments to Administration scrutiny, he need only do so if the donations are new or are of a significantly larger magnitude from a previous donation. In other words, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Sultanate of Oman can keep giving millions without U.S. government review even while Mrs. Clinton is America's chief diplomat. These disclosure limitations suggest that the Clintons seriously out-negotiated Team Obama. We hope the President-elect does better with Iran.

As for potential embarrassment, consider the "up to $5 million" in donations to the Clinton foundation from Gilbert Chagoury, known for his ties to Nigeria's former military dictator, General Sani Abacha. The Journal's John Emshwiller recently noted that unfortunately for Mr. Chagoury, after Abacha died in 1998, "Swiss and other European authorities froze a number of bank accounts, including some related to Mr. Chagoury, as part of an investigation by the Nigerian government and others about whether billions of dollars had been improperly taken out of the country during the Abacha regime, according to news reports and a 2001 British court decision in Abacha-related litigation. Mr. Chagoury later agreed to return funds, estimated to be as much as $300 million, to the Nigerian government in exchange for indemnity from possible charges and to unfreeze his accounts, according to the British court decision."

Another notable donor -- also up to $5 million -- is Viktor Pinchuk, son-in-law of former Ukraine president Leonid Kuchma. Mr. Pinchuk was mentioned in a 2005 Journal story headlined, "Haunted By Suspect Deals Of Old Regime." Suspect indeed. The "privatization" of the country's largest steel plant in a sale to a group including Mr. Pinchuk was later overturned after the country held a democratic election.

And only this month, the New York Times reported that New York developer Robert Congel gave $100,000 to the Clinton foundation in November, 2004, one month after the enactment of a law that gave Mr. Congel access to tax-exempt "green bonds" to build a shopping mall in Syracuse. Mrs. Clinton had supported the law, and within a year of the donation she secured $5 million in taxpayer funds for the complex.

It'd be nice to think Mr. Clinton would forswear this money-hustle while his wife is Secretary of State, but that self-sacrifice would belie his entire career. As for Mrs. Clinton, note the scrutiny that Eric Holder, Mr. Obama's Attorney General nominee, is coming under for his role in aiding pardons for 16 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in 1999. But keep in mind the timing of those pardons was intended to help Mrs. Clinton win Puerto Rican support in her 2000 Senate campaign. Someone should ask her at today's hearing about the role she played in that pardon.

In signing up the Clintons -- always two for the price of one -- Mr. Obama is no doubt hoping to unite his party and mute Democratic criticism when mistakes happen. He is also hiring someone whose prominence and allies make her impossible to fire, even as she and her husband have a history of cutting ethical corners. Good luck.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on January 13, 2009, 09:10:28 AM
**The silence over this is itself remarkable**

Maybe but not surprising.

"oh but they all do it...."

The right has never been able to beat the Clintons with this stuff and never will.  They are a cancer that doesn't respond to chemotherapy.

"it is all a right wing plot"

Here we go again with Begala Carvel Davis and the rest on the airwaves bothering us with there BS.

This stuff is all so tiring.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2009, 10:17:42 PM
In presenting herself to Congress to become Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton at the least showed she will have little trouble conversing in the soft talk of the striped-pants set.

On the Middle East: "We cannot give up on peace." On China: "Much of what we will do depends on the choices China makes."

By default, then, the pro-forma hearing's hardest moments became the nominee's colloquies with Senator Richard Lugar over the status of Bill Clinton's foundation.

We discussed in this space yesterday the complications Mr. Clinton's donor list could create for the conduct of an Obama foreign policy. Senator Lugar pressed the disclosure point at the hearing, even proposing a detailed plan for handling future donations to the foundation. "The core of the problem," said Senator Lugar, "is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the Secretary of State."

Pointedly, Senator John Kerry, the committee chair, leaned in to let Senator Clinton know that Mr. Lugar was "expressing the view of the committee as a whole."

Senator Clinton replied that the agreement worked out between the foundation and the Obama transition was adequate.

No doubt Senator Clinton is sailing toward confirmation and then on to what she promises will be a new world of "smart power." But both Senators Lugar and Kerry have been around Washington long enough to be able to see political difficulty over the horizon.

While the troubled Clinton Presidency by now has been reduced to Monica, veteran Senators will recall that much of the problems had to do with money flowing into the Clinton campaign from mysterious donors and middle men. Then came the Republicans' turn, as the party broke apart on the Abramoff scandal. These senior Senators were trying to ensure that a promising new President doesn't founder on the practices of Washington past. Let's hope the two of them remain vigilant.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on May 29, 2009, 08:20:13 AM
I was wrong. I thought the Clintons would control BO especially with many of his staff having been for them in the past.

By Dick Morris 05.28.2009 Published on on May 26,2009

Asked why he was naming some of his rivals to top administration jobs, President Lyndon B. Johnson said it best: “I’d rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.” President Obama seems to echo Johnson’s management style in his handling of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By bringing them into his inner circle, he has marginalized them both and sharply reduced their freedom of action.

It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a “monster”).

With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.

Part of Hillary’s problem is the institutional shrinking of the State Department. During the Bush years, while war raged, the Defense Department became more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy. And, under Obama, the financial crisis has propelled the Treasury into the forefront. State, with its emphasis on traditional diplomacy, has been forced to take a back seat. Even though Obama appointed Hillary, he clearly has not been willing to make her a co-president and confines her to the diminished role of her department.

For his part, Bill Clinton has been asked to be a special envoy to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. Obama’s predecessor asked the former president to orchestrate the response to the Asian tsunami and then to Hurricane Katrina. Obama gives him Haiti.

Meanwhile, both Clintons are effectively muzzled and cannot criticize Obama even as he reverses President Clinton’s free market proclivities and budget balancing discipline. Hillary, the supposed friend of Israel, must sit by quietly and watch Iran get the bomb while trying all the while to stop Israel from preventing it.

Bill can’t even make money. Denied the ability to accept speeches from foreign governments or their organs and fenced out of continuing his profitable relationship with the Emir of Dubai, he and his wife must accept the loss of the $13 million they spent on her campaign and sit by passively, unable to earn the money to replace it.

Just as Lincoln buried his rivals Seward, Chase and Stanton in the Cabinet and then on the Supreme Court, and Wilson buried Bryan at the State Department, so Obama has hidden his predecessor and his rival in plain sight at the upper reaches of the government.

How long will Hillary subject herself to this discipline? Likely as long as Obama is popular. Should his ratings fade, she might move away from the president and could even consider a primary contest against him in 2012. But while he is on top of his game, she’ll stay loyal.

But she is shrinking by the day. Once Obama’s equal — and before that his superior — she now looks tiny compared to the president. She doesn’t look like a president in waiting; she’s more like a senior staff member hoping to rise in the bureaucracy. No longer at the head of a movement or the symbol of rising women all over the world, she has faded into the State Department woodwork. She is much less visible than her predecessors Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Madeleine Albright or Condi Rice. She is even less in the public eye than was Al Haig during his one-year tenure. One has to go back to the likes of Warren Christopher or William Rogers to find a secretary of State as far down the totem poll. This diminished status has got to grate on her and on him. But they are trapped in Obama’s web and cannot easily escape.****
Title: Hillary in 2016 she would be same age as RR
Post by: ccp on January 11, 2010, 11:17:13 AM
"Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".

Well if we learned anything from the Clintons there is nothing they say that can be believed.

*****Home News World News North America USASmart money is on Hillary Clinton for 2016
Hillary Clinton was written off as a failed presidential candidate who would never have another run at the White House. Not any more, writes Toby Harnden in Washington.
Toby Harnden's American Way
Published: 6:33PM GMT 19 Dec 2009
 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Photo: EPA
Driving past the White House the other day, my eye was caught by the bumper sticker on the shiny black Toyota Prius in front of me. It read: "We love you Hillary - Clinton for President, 2016".

A year ago, I'd have snorted at the slogan and kept my distance from the vehicle - judging the driver to be a delusional Clintonite diehard still desperately fighting the reality that the former First Lady's presidential aspirations were history.

Barack Obama makes world believe in politics again, claims top DemocratNow, the person behind that wheel seems to be on the money. Having elected Barack Obama amid near national euphoria, America is experiencing something akin to buyer's remorse.

Obama's popularity is the lowest of any American president at the end of his first year in office since polling began. Yet as his approval ratings have nose-dived, those of his Secretary of State have curved elegantly upwards.

A recent poll by the Clarus Research Group found that Hillary Clinton had a 75 per cent approval rating compared to 51 per cent for the man who defeated her in their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.

These are very early days to handicap 2016 but it's already clear that she has gone from being the supposedly inevitable 2008 nominee who had blown her one big chance as odds-on favourite to be the next Democratic president.

When Mrs Clinton accepted the job of Secretary of State many of her supporters feared she was falling into a trap. Fearing that she could be a rival source of power from Capitol Hill, Obama calculated she would be less of a threat if he brought her inside his tent.

The downsides for the former First Lady were obvious. She would give up her cherished seat as Senator for New York, which gave her an independent power base. Her voice on domestic policy would be silenced.

And her fortunes would inevitably be linked to the man whom she fervently believed was not up to the top job.

It is a sign of Mrs Clinton's astuteness that she said yes and now finds herself ideally placed to succeed Mr Obama or, in the increasingly plausible scenario that he becomes a one-term president, the Republican who ousts him in 2012.

During the past year, Mrs Clinton has done just what she did when she entered the Senate in 2001 - knuckled down to the hard grind of policy while building relationships with wary sceptics.

The woman who was one of the most polarising figures in American politics now has a glowing 65 per cent approval rating among Independents and healthy 57 per cent among Republicans.

Even sworn enemies on the Right marvelled at her toughness in refusing to concede to Obama until the bitter end in the summer of 2008 and now view her as more hawkish than the president.

Mrs Clinton, moreover, has lived in Arkansas and won over conservatives in upstate New York as well as trouncing Obama in states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania - establishing a connection with Middle America that has eluded the president.

Though Obama trumpeted the notion that he was appointing a "team of rivals" to his Cabinet, Mrs Clinton has been instrumental in making his foreign policy team one of the most harmonious in memory by striking up a firm friendship with Robert Gates, the canny Defence Secretary chief held over from the Bush administration.

In the eight administrations Gates has served in, no two Pentagon and State Department heads have been as close. After the poisonous relations between advisers to Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, it is a startling turnaround.

The alliance between Clinton and Gates - who both argued for a robust troop increase from the outset - helped to stiffen Obama's spine over Afghanistan.

Mrs Clinton can afford to be assiduously loyal because her critique of Obama - "a lot of talk, no action" is how she acidly described him in March last year - is already out there and increasingly resonant. She now has unassailable credentials in the one area where she appeared weak in 2008 - foreign policy.

She has been able to stay out of the contentious debates over health care, Wall Street bailouts and the spiraling deficit while her husband, confounding many, has been a low-key apparent model of propriety since she took over at Foggy Bottom.

Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".

Perhaps that patently implausible denial was the surest indication of all that Mrs Clinton is better placed than ever to become America's first female president - and she knows it.*****
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 11, 2010, 07:22:44 PM
I don't get it.  What on earth has she done?

With regard to:


Poland/Czech Republic?

Nuclear Policy?





Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on January 11, 2010, 09:45:20 PM
What has Hillary done regarding Russia, Poland/Czech Republic, Nuclear Policy, Iran, Honduras, Afghan Pakistan etc? Nothing.  In her defense, her boss asked her not to get involved with foreign policy.

Clintons became masters of delaying the story, not answering, and then they finally confront the questioner as to why they still bring up such old stories.  Now stories will only be reported if they are more corrupt than usual(?)

The Obama administration needs to reassure us that donations raised by Bill won't affect rewards paid out by Hillary at taxpayer expense.  The template is already written and tested.  They can use what ACORN uses to keep taxpayer funds away from partisan activities - the "firewall".  Simply impenetrable, like the social security lockbox.

The year is not 2016; someone in 2012 will seriously challenge Obama from within his own party.

Title: Where oh where has my little biscuit gone?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2010, 10:32:47 PM

OMFG :-o :-o :-o

Contrast this:

After Ronald Reagan said his good-byes to Bonnie Nofziger and hung up the phone, he leaned back and chatted with his aides who had gathered around him. He talked about his favorite room in the White House residence, the Yellow Room, and mentioned the note he had left in the desk drawer for George Bush on a notepad with the printed heading, DON'T LET THE TURKEYS GET YOU DOWN. Someone suggested that the president carve his initials in the Oval Office desk. A chuckle went around the group, and they all felt the bittersweetness of the moment.

Ken Duberstein stepped forward and briefed the president on the schedule for his last day in office--where he was to stand during the inauguration ceremony, when he would board the helicopter that would take him to Andrews Air Force Base for his final flight on Air Force One, when he would give his speech to the well-wishers at Los Angeles International Airport. As Duberstein finished his briefing, the president reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a plain white, plastic-coated card, like an unmarked credit card.

"Well, I guess I won't be needing this anymore," he said, holding the card out in General Powell's direction. "Whom do I give it to?"
It was the nuclear authentication code card that Ronald Reagan had carried throughout his presidency. That thin plastic wafer, when inserted into a black leather briefcase carried by a military aide, had the power to unleash Armageddon upon the world.
"Just hold on to it, sir," said Jim Kuhn. "You're still the commander in chief. You can turn it in after Mr. Bush is sworn in as president."

Ronald Reagan nodded and placed the card back in his pocket. Then Colin Powell stepped forward and gave the president the most succinct national security breefing of Ronald Reagan's entire presidency. "The world is quiet today, Mr. President," said Powell.
Title: For those losing sleep wondering what happened to...
Post by: ccp on March 02, 2011, 11:37:06 AM
Monica Lewinsky Made a Stealth Appearance Last Thursday Night
 03/02/11 12:51am Roger Friedman 0 
Monica Lewinsky–yes, Monica Lewinsky– I saw her last Thursday night in Beverly Hills. She attended the Ed Ruscha art premiere with her brother. And I talked to Monica, and forgot about it entirely until I saw that Terry Richardson somehow got someone that night to take a picture of him with her. It’s on his blog, and I hope it’s okay that I’ve moved it over here. Monica was great, very perky, looking un-aged from her celebrity moment a dozen years ago.  I asked her if she was still making handbags. She said no. She also said she was living out in LA. She was very gracious. It was not appropriate to ask about anything else. So well, well, not much of a story. She was excited to check out all of Ruscha’s work, and that was that. Fame is fleeting. A couple of said, “Isn’t that what’s her name?” And no, she didn’t go to any Oscar parties.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2011, 01:32:36 PM
Title: Warning: Do not view if you have a weak stomach!
Post by: G M on July 21, 2011, 02:47:03 PM

Not. Aging. Well.

I actually flinched when I first saw this pic.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 21, 2011, 03:27:14 PM
I count myself in the front line of those who loath the witch, but with the campaign for the Dem nomination over, I'm guessing the mini-facelifts and face tightening creams because just a pain in the ass.  Int's travel over big time zone changes combined with a stressful job have their consequences. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on July 21, 2011, 03:32:58 PM
If I didn't know who she was, I'd guess this was a psych patient being escorted into a hospital for a 72 hr. hold.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on July 21, 2011, 04:15:18 PM
Caption: 'Hillary Learns that Statute of Limitations has Elapsed on her Commodity Trades'.

One would guess from the relaxed look on the picture that she is not running.  It should be safe now for sane Democrats to start an Anyone-but-Obama 2012 search.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 21, 2011, 04:49:16 PM
You two crack me up  :lol:
Title: Now, how did that get here?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 05:49:15 PM
Wasn't there something in the last few days about a space rock/meteor/moon rock or some such thing of great value that turned up in the Clintons' possession?
Title: Re: Now, how did that get here?
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 06:14:02 PM
Wasn't there something in the last few days about a space rock/meteor/moon rock or some such thing of great value that turned up in the Clintons' possession?

The rock, which weighs less than half an ounce, was brought back to Earth after the 1972 Apollo 17 mission.

It was given to the state of Arkansas more than 30 years ago - then mysteriously disappeared last year.

On Wednesday an archivist sifting through the roughly 2,000 boxes of Clinton materials that are housed in Little Rock, Arkansas, found the missing rock, said Bobby Roberts, who directs the Central Arkansas Library System.

"This morning, one of the processors opened up a box and there's the moon rock, out of nowhere," Mr Roberts said.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette first reported the rock was missing last year. Since then, Mr Roberts said he has been following the news about the moon rock.

"It kind of became Arkansas' mystery about where's the moon rock," he said.

Mr Roberts said he's not sure how the rock ended up among paperwork from when Mr Clinton served as governor, but he said he's glad it has been recovered.

**Amazing the missing things that just happen to turn up around the Clintons. The rock was described as being less than half an ounce, so it's doubtful Bill was rubbing his cigar on it.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 08:42:00 PM
Maybe it was next to the missing billing records from Hillary's law firm that appeared in her quarters at the WH after the statute of limitations expired , , , or maybe it travelled with the WH silverware when the Clintons left the WH.

But I digress , , , BTW is there an guestimated market value to that moon rock?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 09:12:46 PM
From what I understand, they are worth millions.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2011, 09:56:59 PM
Naturally the Pravdas are all over this , , ,
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on September 26, 2011, 10:05:02 PM
Naturally the Pravdas are all over this , , ,

Imagine if a moon rock given to the state of Alaska was found in some of Palin's papers......
Title: The bitch is back
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 21, 2011, 07:38:28 PM

Last week it was reported that the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were deeply involved in the scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, or Project Gunwalker. Today, however, new evidence has surfaced indicating that not only was Hillary deeply involved in the scandal but was one of the masterminds behind it.

According to investigative citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, sources close to the development of the Gunwalker scheme state that early on, Hillary and her trusted associated at State, Andrew J. Shapiro, devised at least part of the framework of what would later become Operation Fast and Furious. It was Shapiro who first described the details of the proposed scheme early in 2009 just after the Obama Administration took office.

Vanderboegh relates the following:

My sources say that as Hillary's trusted subordinate, it was Shapiro who first described to the Secretary of State the details of what has become the Gunwalker Scandal.

The precise extent to which Hillary Clinton's knowledge of, and responsibility for, the Gunwalker Plot, lies within the memories of these two men, Shapiro and Steinberg, sources say.

The sources also express dismay that the Issa committee is apparently restricting itself to the Department of Justice and not venturing further afield. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, they say, needs to summon these two men and their subordinates -- especially at the Mexico Desk at State -- and question them under oath as to what Hillary Clinton knew about the origins of the Gunwalker Scandal and when she knew it.

There is one other thing those sources agree upon. The CIA, they say, knows "everything" about the "Mexican hat dance" that became the Gunwalker Scandal.

The 'Steinberg' mentioned in the quote above is Hillary Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State, who was appointed directly by Barack Obama and was considered from the start to be an 'Obama man' whose objective was to carry out the wishes of the President in the State Department.

Hillary had said of Steinberg,

Clinton said Steinberg had been a “fixture” at meetings with the National Security Council (NSC) and frequently represented the US State Department at the White House.

That statement is key. Hillary herself stayed out of all meetings dealing with strategy concerning the euphemism the Administration used to designate Gunwalker, 'strategy meetings on Mexico and the problem of drug and gun trafficking.' Hillary's absence would give the impression that she had no connection to the scheme while making sure that her views were represented by Steinberg and Shapiro, both of whom were fully complicit with the details that developed concerning how to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico.

According to sources, Hillary was obsessed with gun statistics that would prove that '90% of the firearms used by Mexican criminals come from the United States.' As previouly reported, that meme, repeated incessantly by Democratic Senators, Barack Obama, certan members of the ATF, Janet Napolitano, and Hillary Clinton was patently and blatantly false. The fact that they all knew it was false is borne out by the lengths to which each of the above named co-conspirators went to attempt to 'prove' that the 90% figure was true.

Again, Vanderboegh relates the following:

My sources say that this battle of the "statistics" was taken very seriously by all players -- the White House, State and Justice. Yet, WHY was this game of statistics so important to the players? If some weapons from the American civilian market were making it to Mexico into the hand of drug gang killers that was bad enough. What was the importance of insisting that it was 90 percent, 80 percent, or finally 70 percent? Would such statistics make any difference to the law enforcement tactics necessary to curtail them? No.

This statistics mania is similar to the focus on "body counts" in Vietnam. Yet if Vietnam body counts were supposed to be a measure of how we were winning that war, the focus on the 90 percent meme was certainly not designed to be a measure of how we were winning the war against arming the cartels, but rather by what overwhelming standard we were LOSING. Why?

Recall what the whistleblower ATF agents told us right after this scandal broke in the wake of the death of Brian Terry: "ATF source confirms ‘walking’ guns to Mexico to ‘pad’ statistics."

Thus, from the beginning the scheme was to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico in order to be in a strengthened position to call for gun bans and strict gun control at a time when it was politically unpopular. Further, the scheme would involve a made-up statistic, out of thin air--90%--which then had to be proved by using civilian gun retailers along the southern border as unsuspecting pawns to walk U.S. guns into Mexico by ATF agents, straw purchasers, and others with connections to Mexican drug cartels.

And the evidence points to the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the original Administration officials who was 'in the loop' on the scheme from the very beginning.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on October 22, 2011, 07:14:38 AM
Crafty you know as well as the rest of the *objective* world this is all a concoction of some vast right wing conspriracy. :roll:
Title: "Smart"
Post by: ccp on November 27, 2011, 01:15:58 PM
a modern economy requires a government that is *smart*  Obviously this is the new push for a return to the Clintons from the liberals.  Government is not the problem - aka the Tea Party's claim - what we need is a "smarter" government.  And who better to see that government is smarter than the beloved Clintons.  Remember the cover of TIME magazine with something about Hillary Clinton and "smart" foreing policy.  There is NO doubt she will run for President again.   When I don't know.  If VP slot with the Brockster?  I don't know.  If not than in 2016.

This is the new con.  "Good and smart" government.  I recall Soros also has spoken about "good" government.   There really is no hope in stopping this relentless push for government to control everything we do.  They use voter bribery (entitlements) to buy people with this ideology.  I really think there is no hope. 

From the Economist:

****Bill Clinton's "Back to Work"
Missing Bill
Sep 29th 2011, 14:09 by A.W. | LONDON

..DURING the 2008 presidential election Bill Clinton’s reputation took a battering. Democrats who had stuck with him through all the bimbo eruptions and political zigzags suddenly started accusing him of racism (in South Carolina) and boorishness (almost everywhere). This owed something to the press which had all but degenerated into an ahmen chorus to the Obama operation. But it owed more to a general sense of exhaustion with the former first family: few people wanted to see Bill become Putin to Hillary’s Medvedev.
How the mood has changed! The comeback kid is back with a vengeance. From September 30th to October 1st he celebrates the 20th anniversary of his announced run for the presidency in Little Rock, Arkansas. In November Knopf is publishing a new book, “Back to Work”, his second literary offering after his sprawling autobiography. And the press is primed for a love-fest. The further Barack Obama’s stock has fallen—and it has fallen a long way—the more Mr Clinton’s has risen. And the worse the global economic crisis becomes—and it is becoming very bad indeed—the more people hanker after the stable growth of the 1990s.
Unlike Mr Obama, who seems most at home with campus liberals and minority activists, Mr Clinton knew how to reach white middle America—those poor boobs who ostensibly cling to guns and God. Mr Obama knows only two registers—grand (and increasingly tedious) rhetoric and cold cerebration. Mr Clinton can feel people’s pain—can drape a hand over people’s shoulders and convince them that they are the centre of his universe. He does Oprah better than Oprah and Dr Phil better than Dr Phil. But "Back to Work" reminds us that there is an even more important reason why we should miss the old rogue: he may have been undisciplined, self-indulgent and sleazy, but he was one of the greatest policy wonks ever to sit in the White House.
One of the most surprising things about Mr Obama’s presidency—even more surprising than his appetite for golf—is his lack of interest in the nitty-gritty of policy. Mr Clinton brought the same appetite to social policy that he did to junk food and cheap women. He loved debating the finer points with the likes of Robert Reich and Lawrence Summers. As a New Democrat, he understood that liberalism needed to reinvent itself if it was to remain relevant in an age of globalisation and information technology (though his interest in IT did not extend to teaching himself how to use a computer). As a former governor, he understood that the devil of policy-making lies in the details.
In his new book “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President”, Ron Suskind quotes Mr Obama claiming that “Carter, Clinton and I all have sort of the disease of being policy wonks”. But in truth Mr Obama is surprisingly free from the disease, given his Ivy League education and cerebral style: he has never wrestled with public policy for any sustained period of time; never once gone to battle with his party’s interest groups in defence of a new liberalism, for example; never descended into the engine room of the policy machine.
Mr Obama’s supporters might retort that he inherited a far more difficult set of problems than Mr Clinton: the biggest economic implosion since the Great Depression, a huge mountain of debt, much of it accumulated by his spendthrift predecessor, and two interminable wars. But he also had huge resources at his disposal in his first two years: a solid electoral majority, Democratic majorities in both houses and a whirlwind of goodwill as the first African-American president. This could have produced health-care legislation that dealt seriously with costs and educational reforms that extended choice and competition. But instead Mr Obama handed over the detail of health-care reform to Congressional Democrats (who gutted any cost-cutting) and retreated before the teachers’ unions. Mr Obama’s supporters might also retort that after those two golden years, he was confronted by a resurgent Republican majority in the House. But divided politics can be a stimulus to creative policy making: Mr Clinton’s battles with Newt Gingrich’s Republicans led to one of his singular pieces of legislation, welfare reform.
“Back to Work” addresses the subject Mr Obama has been weakest with: job creation. Mr Clinton sounds some classic themes from the 1990s with a bit of fashionable greenery flown in. The private and public sector should be partners, not antagonists: anti-government rhetoric may be good for politics (and TV ratings) but it is bad for policy-making. A modern economy requires a government that is active but smart rather than one that is active but driven by vested interests. But the blurb also promises some “specific recommendations” on how to put people back to work and create new businesses—and even double America’s exports. It is impossible to judge whether this is just flannel or serious argument until the book is released next month. It is also far easier to make recommendations from the comfort of retirement than it is to govern. But a president who presided over America’s Indian summer—a period of sustained growth and disciplined government—should at least have something to say to a new generation of politicians who live in a far stormier time.***

Title: Here it is. "Smart power" from Time
Post by: ccp on November 27, 2011, 01:19:21 PM
No one but no one is smarter than the pair of Clintons - except for the other one on the way - Chelsea.,9171,2097973,00.html
Title: Clinton - again
Post by: ccp on January 04, 2012, 11:15:39 AM
I guess this could go under 2012 election thread.  I have ZERO doubt we have seen the last of the Clintons.  Question is now as Brock VP?? or next election cycle?   They still have no one else.
Title: Nothing groundbreaking
Post by: ccp on March 26, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
but a good synopsis of Hillary as SOS - In 2016 She will be 69 same age as RR:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on April 17, 2012, 07:43:09 AM
Anyone else notice the Hillary charm attacks in the MSM lately?

See Hillary use electronic devices and use the wireless lingo.
See Hillary kicking up her heals and drinking beer in Columbia.

She certainly has the Machine still pushing her for 2016.

I guess that's how they all keep power and make money.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: JDN on April 17, 2012, 09:19:04 AM
Frankly, I wish she was President today.  She is a very capable woman.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on April 17, 2012, 09:24:01 AM
"Frankly, I wish she was President today.  She is a very capable woman."

Of course you do and of course this is your response.  She will run 2016 and you may have your wish.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: JDN on April 17, 2012, 09:30:57 AM
Well, I think she is more qualified and would have done a better job than Obama.  As for 2016, GM once accused me of ageism.  It's not true,
but.....  this is one tough job whichever side of the aisle you come from.  I'm not sure I would vote for someone age 69 unless they had a very
qualified VP and was much younger.  That was my problem with McCain. 

I think Clinton missed her chance....  But we will see.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on April 17, 2012, 10:49:59 AM
"I'm not sure I would vote for someone age 69 unless they had a very
qualified VP and was much younger.  That was my problem with McCain."

I will believe this when you tell me in '16 and she runs for office that you won't vote for her due to her advanced age.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: JDN on April 17, 2012, 10:58:06 AM
Well if she chooses someone more qualified than Palin (what a joke) as VP than I might.  But then I probably would have voted for McCain until he chose her.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on April 17, 2012, 11:02:14 AM
I guess if Palin only had a fake Chicago graft professorship it would be different for JDN.

Why are they still hiding "Austrian Language/Corpseman's" academic transcripts?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on April 17, 2012, 11:43:46 AM
Frankly, I wish she was President today.  She is a very capable woman sociopathic liar.


Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on April 17, 2012, 11:54:10 AM
"sociopathic liar"

But this is ok.

She can boogy, belt down a beer, text, tweet and she is just one KOOOL cat.

Is this for the "youth"  (synonomous with fool) vote?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on April 17, 2012, 11:55:47 AM
No. They are stuck in their parent's basements trying to find any job while their student loans crush them.

"sociopathic liar"

But this is ok.

She can boogy, belt down a beer, text, tweet and she is just one KOOOL cat.

Is this for the "youth"  (synonomous with fool) vote?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2012, 04:38:43 PM
Not to mention Whitewater, the weird death of Vincent Foster, the weird appearance of subpoened law firm documents in her office after the statute of limitations had expired, and whathisname going to prison on her behalf and then getting $700,000 from Chinese front family the Riady's of Indonesia, and the $97,000 pay off in the form of commodities trading profits.

But whose counting , , ,
Title: Women love the Hill
Post by: ccp on April 24, 2012, 08:40:14 AM
Crafty wrote on the "Glibness" thread:

"I saw an extended interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN with Hillary and Leon Panetta while I was in Munich.  A real soft interview of course, but I must say that Hillary is seeming warmer, more human, and more likable recently.  She and P. were laughing and joking with each other a lot.  It seemed like their personal comfort level was very high.  Not saming I'm buying it, but what with pictures of her drinking beer, partying, and other things, on top of a lot of people thinking she has been well seasoned by her stint as SecState,  I do think that she would make a formidable addition to Baraq's chances.  A lot of women would see her as being a shoo-in for 2016 after VPing for 2012-2016."

That does appear to be the plan.

There is no question we are not done with the Clintons.

There is a whole industry built around them ready to pounce her into office.

JDN will post, of course, that that would be wonderful later in this thread.

Rachel who has not come back onto the board because she took the BCP flap "personally" would of course be a Hilllary champion.

Even my sister a republican recently told me she has bought the Koolaid by telling me she thinks the Hill is doing a good job.

As men, we must not underestimate the anger women have for men.

*Honesty* does not it seem have much relevance when dealing with societal segments who identify with particular candidates.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on April 24, 2012, 08:56:39 AM
"She and P. were laughing and joking with each other a lot.  It seemed like their personal comfort level was very high."

Well Leon is a Clinton lover from the 90's.  He was WH chief of staff for the Bill.

They covered up a lot together. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 24, 2012, 10:08:01 AM
I'd forgotten that about Leon.

Wonder if she's given him any in revenge for Bill's wanderings? , , , , :lol:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on April 24, 2012, 10:13:22 AM
She may have whipped him a few times...... :wink:
Title: Chelsea
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 12, 2012, 01:37:01 PM
From the 1990s:

Q: What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer with a slimy politician?

A: Chelsea.

Chelsea's Got Talent – Flacking for the Islamophobia Industry
by Joel Himelfarb
IPT News
June 12, 2012

  Be the first of your friends to like this.
Word is that former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton's career as an NBC special correspondent isn't going terribly well. Labeled the "Dork Diva" by one media blog, network officials complain about everything from her refusal to discuss growing up in the Clinton White House to what they consider her lack of story production (just a handful since starting there last year). "What's she giving us?" one NBC executive asked skeptically.
Many people think Chelsea will follow in the footsteps of parents Bill and Hillary and run for office if her television career implodes, but I disagree.
After watching her recent performance moderating a New York Jewish Community Center forum on "Islamophobia," it's apparent that mere election to Congress or some other public office wouldn't be the best use of Chelsea's talent.
But if she decided on a career as a public-relations spokesman for the "Islamophobia Industry," her growth potential would be limitless. When I refer to the Industry, I mean organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and scores of like-minded groups that have proliferated across the United States during the past 20 years.
In general, these ideologues work to stifle legitimate debate by discrediting anyone who tries to point out the role of radical Islam in terrorism around the world or the radicalism in indoctrination centers and mosques like this, this, this and this as a bigot. The Industry also works to discredit successful prosecutions of jihadists seeking to attack the United States.
One weapon that has proven useful to the Industry is so-called "interfaith dialogue" involving Jewish and Islamic leaders. The Muslim participants tend to be Islamists, while their Jewish counterparts tend to be well-meaning "useful idiots" like Rabbi Marc Schneier, who has tried to establish a partnership with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which is rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. All too often, the result is a debacle in which the liberal Jews pine for dialogue while the Islamists stonewall and repeat anti-Semitic slanders.
And when Schneier (who heads a group called the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, or FFEU) and Imam Muhammad Shamsi Ali joined Chelsea Clinton at the JCC March 14, things didn't go a whole lot better. Although it talks a lot about the virtues of diversity, the Islamophobia Industry portrays Muslim life in America in a bleak, one-dimensional way: as if Muslims here are little more than innocent victims of thuggish, bigoted non-Muslim gangs determined to punish them for 9/11 and subsequent jihadist actions.
I was taught a long time ago in Journalism 101 that the job of a journalist is to report on the news – not to act as an advocate or partisan. NBC's special correspondent views things a lot differently, declaring it is "the responsibility of the media to help ameliorate Islamophobia."
And that's precisely what Chelsea tried to do, tossing one softball after another to Ali and Schneier, parroting misinformation of her own and failing to question whoppers from the imam and the rabbi. Schneier, for example, bragged about his collaboration with hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons at FEU, but didn't get a single question from the moderator about Simmons' long history of sycophantic praise for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite.
Nor did Chelsea seem well-informed about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy that heated up in 2010. She asked Schneier how "you think about trying to use the media to in many ways combat the media?" Chelsea suggested that Schneier might need to gear up for battle because "we saw such vitriolic statements covered widely in the media" with commentators using "terms that at best were insensitive to somewhere in the middle, or derogatory, and at worst were really dehumanizing." (She neglected to provide an example).
After Chelsea asked what the pair was doing to stop this, Schneier talked about his opposition to hearings on Islamist radicalization in the United States by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., and bragged about working with Islamist Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., in an effort to win the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Schneier received thunderous applause from the audience when he described such work as an example of "the genuine authenticity that is needed for this Muslim/Jewish reconciliation."
Neither Schneier nor Chelsea Clinton bothered to mention that this "authenticity" came at a heavy price: the release of more than 1,000 imprisoned terrorist operatives, including planners of grisly attacks targeting civilians.
Just as the New York Times propagandized against "The Third Jihad" (a film spotlighting the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology), Chelsea falsely asserted that the film attacked "Muslim Americans" as a group as "somewhere on the continuum from deceitful to a terrorist in waiting." In fact, the documentary doesn't target Muslims as a group but does detail how CAIR was created after a secret 1993 meeting in Philadelphia involving members of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. The meeting was to generate support for the Hamas terror organization which runs Gaza today.
And Chelsea accepted without challenge Ali's disinformation about the word jihad. While he acknowledged it is a "scary word," Ali said people don't necessarily have to fear jihad, which can sometimes be a good thing. "We are doing a jihad. This is a jihad for peace, jihad for harmony, jihad for cooperation between people."
Chelsea appeared blissfully ignorant of Ali's links with Islamists and his criticism of the media for associating Muslims with jihadist terror.
The imam wasn't asked, for example, about his role as co-chairman of a 2006 Muslim Day Parade in which radical Imam Siraj Wahhaj, (a character witness for the "Blind Sheikh" at his terrorism trial) served as grand marshal.
After a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad, Ali called the cartoons "psychological warfare against the Muslim world." At a protest outside the Danish consulate in New York City, Ali politely introduced speakers like Sara Flounders of the International Action Center, who called the cartoons "part of a war on all Muslim people" as well as conspiracy theorists who demanded that Washington end its support for "the racist occupying regime in Palestine."
Speaking at a 2008 conference sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society, Ali suggested that the media (rather than the jihadists) was to blame for connecting radical Islam and terror.
"The media is a culprit in damaging Islam's reputation," he said. "Such terms as 'Islamic terrorists,' 'Muslim radicals,' 'Shi'ite extremists,' 'Sunni bombers,' 'Islamic suicide bombers,' have become headlines."
Like Ali, Schneier directs much of his fire at Americans who have the temerity to ask difficult questions about radicalism and its origins. One of the rabbi's favorite targets has been Rep. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who Schneier depicts as a contributor to anti-Muslim bigotry for investigating radicalism.
At a March 2011 press conference, Schneier said he shares Ellison's concern "that these hearings will only exacerbate anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia in our country."
Schneier's own forays into "interfaith dialogue" haven't always proven to be unvarnished successes. Shortly after Nidal Hasan, an Islamist serving as a military psychiatrist, massacred 13 people at Ford Hood, Tex., Schneier described in the Washington Post the successes of a "Weekend of Twinning of Synagogues and Mosques."
Writing at, Ilya Feoktistov of Americans for Peace and Tolerance described how one such "twinning" turned disastrous. A Buffalo, N.Y.-area Jewish geriatrician and a Muslim dentist attended a medical conference in Damascus, Syria. During a break in the conference, the Muslim escorted his Jewish counterpart to a nearby mosque where he was introduced to an imam who sounded moderate – at least in his English-language writings and remarks.
After Jewish officials in Buffalo had the imam's Arabic-language writings translated into English, they learned that he was virulent anti-Semite and a political ally of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
The Islamist radicals were doing this (with Schneier's unwitting help) because such "disingenuous interfaith dialogue with Jewish leaders is also a strategic force-multiplier for extremists," Feoktistov wrote. "The rest of American society tends to look to Jews on the topic of extremist bigotry and intolerance as the proverbial canary in the coal mine. By embracing radical Islamists in an official interfaith relationship, Jewish leaders give them a ticket into American institutions."
Interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims "can be valuable. Yet dialogue is only productive when it occurs with partners who are honest about their true intentions," he added. "Instead of promoting peace and tolerance, legitimizing such entities through interfaith partnerships will only promote the hatred they preach when they think the Jews aren't paying attention."
One person who hadn't been paying attention was Chelsea, who clearly knew nothing about such politically inconvenient facts. "I think it's part of what is so impressive about the work that you do, that it's not only dialogue, that it is motivated by a shared purpose to build a shared community, to build a shared future of the promised land," she gushed to Schneier and Ali.
While the younger Clinton's gullibility allowed plenty of opportunity for the rabbi and the imam to peddle disinformation, it's striking to note what didn't get talked about: Muslim violence against non-Muslims and Muslims alike. The JCC audience wasn't burdened with information about Taliban savagery towards women; al-Qaida attacks targeting Iraqi civilians; al-Shabaab's predations against Somalis, or annoyances like terrorist attacks targeting Christian communities in Egypt and Iraq.
No, this was a Kumbaya moment, and Chelsea wasn't about to let the facts get in the way of the rabbi and the imam's propaganda shtick. It is simply disgraceful that the leadership of the New York JCC, who should know better, allowed themselves to be used as a conduit for such one-sided agitprop.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 13, 2012, 12:19:44 PM
Well it sounds like we won't have to worry about Chelsea going far.   In her defense her parents, for better or worse, are certainly a tough act to follow.

That said I still contend we well have Hillary running in '16.  We are not done with the Clintons and their political machine yet.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2012, 09:09:48 AM
Apparently all three of them will be 1/2 block from my house tomorrow. Bill is giving a commencement speech at Redondo Union HS because his nephew (via his brother) is graduating.  Due to security issues, a substantial clusterfcuk is expected.
Title: Denis Rich, Marc Rich's wife, renounces citizenship (Eric Holder in here too)
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2012, 08:19:04 AM
Title: Busted checking out bust
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 08, 2012, 11:15:31 AM
Reminds me of the joke about how Bill and Hillary met because they were dating the same girl , , ,
Title: Re: Keeping up with the Clintons
Post by: DougMacG on December 15, 2012, 11:38:59 AM
"Hillary Clinton Faints, Sustains Concussion"

I don't wish injury or ill health to anyone - except maybe Hugo Chavez - so this is a sad story and I wish her truly a full and speedy recovery.

That said and no reason to doubt anything, but there is this: they didn't say when it happened, and "Mrs. Clinton's illness appears likely to delay her planned testimony Thursday before a congressional body investigating the September terrorist attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi..."
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2012, 12:56:19 PM
So, if we say we suspect she is lying, then we are wishing her good health? :evil: :lol:

Those of us who followed the White Water saga during the Clinton years in the WSJ (which did an OUTSTANDING job of not letting go of it-- a pit bull would have been impressed) will remember how again and again the Clintons moved key witnesses out of reach of investigators by assigning them overseas etc.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on December 15, 2012, 01:37:22 PM
So, if we say we suspect she is lying, then we are wishing her good health? :evil: :lol:

Those of us who followed the White Water saga during the Clinton years in the WSJ (which did an OUTSTANDING job of not letting go of it-- a pit bull would have been impressed) will remember how again and again the Clintons moved key witnesses out of reach of investigators by assigning them overseas etc.

If wish her at least 50 years of good health - and hope she invests all her book money in the American private sector, hiring thousands of people under all the new tax and regulatory rules, particularly as they relate to healthcare, employee leave and all the rest.

Hillary in her prime as First Lady came on a local conservative talk show called Garage Logic, set in a fictional town where they believe most good ideas start out in the garage.  The banter got a little awkward when it turned out this woman had never owned a car, a house that she lived in, or a garage.

Yes, the WSJ was all over the Whitewater scandal with all its corruption, especially before reelection, and the exposed guilt and shiftiness made no difference at all in their popularity.
Title: Re: The Hillary Faint Fall
Post by: DougMacG on December 17, 2012, 01:42:08 PM
I regret having this thought, but there is something fishy about having an unreported fall on an unspecified day at an undisclosed location, not being hospitalized, doing just fine, but unable to testify at public hearings, more than a week later, on Benghazi.  They didn't request the hearings moved a day or a week, instead they will provide some other 'senior official' in her place to say things like "I don't know" and "we will have to wait until the investigation is complete."

As the Clintons used to say after blocking, stonewalling and stalling:  That old issue?  Those questions were all asked and answered a LONG time ago.'

It was often said about the Clintons -They lie with such ease.

Title: Blood clot?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2012, 07:53:14 PM

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Hospitalized With Blood Clot

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized on Sunday with a blood clot stemming from a concussion she suffered earlier this month, a State Department spokesman said.
Mrs. Clinton, who canceled most of her public events in recent weeks because of her concussion, was at a follow-up exam Sunday when doctors discovered a blood clot, according to Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton.
“She is being treated with anticoagulants and is at New York-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours,” Mr. Reines said in a statement.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on December 31, 2012, 09:16:41 PM
Previously on Benghazi:  "The injury/illness seems like either BS or hiding something more serious (Daily Mail says it is not brain cancer...)"

My heart goes out to Hillary with her health challenges.  My disagreement is over policy and tactics, not her well being. 

The fable about crying wolf led to the question: how will we know when you are telling the truth?  I have no idea what is true or false about Hillary.  Press reports are of little help. 

Get well, and then come testify.  We have questions for you.
Title: WSJ: Hillary's blood clot
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2013, 11:19:47 AM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is suffering from a blood clot located between her brain and her skull, behind her right ear, her physicians said Monday, describing the location of the clot for the first time since she was hospitalized on Sunday.

he didn't suffer a stroke or sustain any neurological damage, said her doctors.

"In all other aspects of her recovery, the secretary is making excellent progress and we are confident she will make a full recovery," Dr. Lisa Bardack of Mt. Kisco, N.Y., and Dr. Gigi El-Bayoumi of George Washington University said. "She is in good spirits, engaging with her doctors, her family, and her staff."

The blood clot is in a vein that experts said drains blood from the brain and is in an area known as the right transverse sinus, which the physicians described as a space between the brain and skull, behind the ear.

They said the blood clot was discovered Sunday in a "routine follow-up" visit. They said Mrs. Clinton would be released from the hospital once a proper dosage of blood thinners has been established. She was being treated at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia in New York City.

State Department officials before Monday afternoon's statement had declined to say where the blood clot was located.

The clot was the latest health problem to confront Mrs. Clinton in recent weeks. She became ill with a stomach virus during a European trip early in December. That virus led to what officials described as dehydration and caused her to faint, fall and suffer a concussion. The blood clot was discovered over the weekend.

Dr. Lori Shutter, a neurologist and critical-care doctor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said Mrs. Clinton was fortunate that the clot was in this particular vein, because there are two such veins, one behind each ear. With one blocked, the second is able to continue draining used blood from the brain.

Without that backup, the clot could have led to a "venous stroke." In that condition, the brain cannot properly drain itself of blood, resulting in a buildup of pressure. Because of the pressure, the brain wouldn't be able to accept sufficient amounts of oxygenated blood from arteries to sustain the tissue—hence a stroke.

Dr. Shutter said Mrs. Clinton's clot could well have been caused by the fall and concussion earlier in December. The fall could have led to a hairline fracture of the bone surrounding the vein, or could have caused inflammation within the vein. Either way, Dr. Shutter said, a clot could have occurred.

Dr. Shutter, who isn't involved in Mrs. Clinton's care, said the secretary likely will be on blood thinners for months.

Venous strokes more typically occur because of a clot in another vein, called the superior sagittal sinus. This is because there is only one such vein and any blockage there could prove more critical. A venous stroke is considered generally less severe than the most common kind of strokes, which are caused by a clot in an artery, which blocks blood flow to the brain and can kill brain tissue.  By contrast, a venous stroke can cause some minor weakness or confusion, said Dr. Shutter.

The disclosure of the location of Mrs. Clinton's blood clot came near the end of the day, after State Department officials had refused to elaborate on her condition. It wasn't clear when physicians determined the secretary had avoided a stroke or any neurological damage, or whether that determination contributed to the delay in the release of details about her condition.

Earlier in the day on Monday, hospital executives referred all questions about Mrs. Clinton's condition to the State Department, where officials wouldn't respond to questions.

The latest setback may affect plans for Mrs. Clinton to testify before Congress about the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya that claimed the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, and resulted in sharp criticism of her agency.

She initially had planned to testify Dec. 20, but postponed that appearance because of her concussion, promising before her hospitalization Sunday to appear before lawmakers in January.
Title: Tin foil hat time?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2013, 02:26:37 PM
second post of day

Title: Re: Tin foil hat time?
Post by: G M on January 01, 2013, 02:30:44 PM
second post of day

She can't testify until they are sure the perjury section of her brain is undamaged.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2013, 02:36:58 PM
GM:  Take another look at my post now.
Title: Re: Tin foil hat time?
Post by: G M on January 01, 2013, 02:53:26 PM
second post of day

I'll look into this, but I'm not buying this at all at this time.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2013, 02:55:14 PM
Hence my reference to tin foil hats in my post  :-D

OTOH with the Clintons one can never be sure , , ,  :lol:
Title: Reminiscing about the Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on January 25, 2013, 01:38:38 PM
It used to be said of the Clinton's, they lie with such ease.  In the latest deal, you could say they deceive, stonewall and turn things around on people with such ease.  As I wrote on the Benghazi thread, that does not change the facts.

We are not learning much about Benghazi right now but might as well take the opportunity to reflect on what we may already know about Hillary.   Seems well sourced, some facts in dispute.

Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Dan Calabrese,  Wednesday January 23rd, 2013

By DAN CALABRESE - Bet you didn't know this.

I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn't reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary's arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I've combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you're interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it's worth your time to read it.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.


“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)

This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.

According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential "abuse of power" as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:

Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .

In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.

Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

Vote wisely.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2013, 02:11:21 PM
Wow, a fascinating bit of history you've brought up from the memory hole there Doug.

In a similar vein there is the matter of her receiving $97,000 laundered dollars from Tyson Foods via her commodity straddles trades in the late 70s while Bill was running for governor.  (I think I have already posted about it.)
Title: Morris: Hillary's record at State
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2013, 01:14:46 PM

Hillary's Dismal Record At State
Published on on February 1, 2013

The media spin is that she has been an excellent Secretary of State.  But its just spin.
Look at the record:
•  Chavez now controls Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Ecuador as well as Venezuela and has big influence in Brazil.  He is providing a base for Iran to move into the hemisphere.
•  Russia has become more repressive and aggressive. Democracy advocates are more subject to arrest and torture and nothing has come of the "reset" except more appeasement.
•  The Ukraine has drifted closer to Russia and further away from the West.
•  Iran is much closer to having the bomb and likely using it against Israel.
•  We've lost Egypt and Islamist power is sweeping the Arab world.  The singular achievement of American Mid East diplomacy over the past fifty years -- the Camp David Accords -- are being undone as we speak.
•  North Korea gets ever more brazen, has become a nuclear power, and now has put a satellite into orbit.
•  China still weakens its currency making our products too expensive there and theirs' cheaper here.  And it launches cyber attacks against institutions like the New York Times with total impunity.
•  The Islamist offensive in sub-Sahara Africa gains momentum.
•  Afghanistan is no closer to putting down the Taliban, is still one of the most corrupt of the world's governments, and Pakistan's collaboration with al Qaeda grows more and more evident.
And then there's Benghazi.  The cover-up -- dressing the terrorist attack up as a demonstration over a movie gone wrong -- disgraces her tenure.  It was a transparent attempt to sweep an issue under the rug to help Obama get re-elected.
The press corps that follows Hillary around the world is unanimous in praising her.  They are her captives.  Covering Hillary is their full time assignment.  If they annoy her, they are frozen out on the plane and can't do their jobs.  Sycophancy alone is tolerated.
Has Hillary been a good Secretary of State?  Look at the record.
Title: Re: Morris: Hillary's record at State
Post by: G M on February 01, 2013, 03:11:59 PM

Hillary's Dismal Record At State
Published on on February 1, 2013

The media spin is that she has been an excellent Secretary of State.  But its just spin.
Look at the record:
•  Chavez now controls Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Ecuador as well as Venezuela and has big influence in Brazil.  He is providing a base for Iran to move into the hemisphere.
•  Russia has become more repressive and aggressive. Democracy advocates are more subject to arrest and torture and nothing has come of the "reset" except more appeasement.
•  The Ukraine has drifted closer to Russia and further away from the West.
•  Iran is much closer to having the bomb and likely using it against Israel.
•  We've lost Egypt and Islamist power is sweeping the Arab world.  The singular achievement of American Mid East diplomacy over the past fifty years -- the Camp David Accords -- are being undone as we speak.
•  North Korea gets ever more brazen, has become a nuclear power, and now has put a satellite into orbit.
•  China still weakens its currency making our products too expensive there and theirs' cheaper here.  And it launches cyber attacks against institutions like the New York Times with total impunity.
•  The Islamist offensive in sub-Sahara Africa gains momentum.
•  Afghanistan is no closer to putting down the Taliban, is still one of the most corrupt of the world's governments, and Pakistan's collaboration with al Qaeda grows more and more evident.
And then there's Benghazi.  The cover-up -- dressing the terrorist attack up as a demonstration over a movie gone wrong -- disgraces her tenure.  It was a transparent attempt to sweep an issue under the rug to help Obama get re-elected.
The press corps that follows Hillary around the world is unanimous in praising her.  They are her captives.  Covering Hillary is their full time assignment.  If they annoy her, they are frozen out on the plane and can't do their jobs.  Sycophancy alone is tolerated.
Has Hillary been a good Secretary of State?  Look at the record.

8 attacks on US embassies on her watch, but what does it matter?
Title: Who is Ed Mezvinsky?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2013, 11:03:37 AM
Who is Ed Mezvinsky ?

Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937, is a former Democratic congressman. He represented Iowa 's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977. He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon. He and the Clinton's were very politically intertwined for years.

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He was sentenced to 80 months in (Federal) prison.

Ed Mezvinsky embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams.

After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008. He remained on federal probation through 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

So who is Ed Mezvinsky? He's Chelsea Clinton's father-in law.
Has anyone heard mention of this in any of the media? If this guy were Jenna or Barbara Bush's, or better yet, Sarah Palin's daughter's father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline, large type!
God Bless America!!!
Son of a bitch! .....It's true!  Crooks and crooked politicians always stick together!

Title: Hillary Clinton in 2002: "BUSH KNEW" of terror attacks prior to 9/11/01
Post by: DougMacG on April 24, 2013, 10:49:33 AM
"We have a responsibility to ask for information, and I think that is not only appropriate but necessary."

A flashback caught by Drudge.  Interesting in the context of all the terror information in Benghazi that Hillary Clinton had prior to 9/11 - 2012.

May 18, 2002   WASHINGTON (CNN
The former first lady responded by saying she is simply "seeking answers and information" about recent revelations that President Bush was alerted prior to September 11 of possible terrorist attacks.

The row between the White House and the Democrat from New York began Thursday when Clinton appeared on the Senate floor and held up a copy of the New York Post with the headline of "Bush Knew."

"The president knew what?" she asked. "My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions, not to blame the president or any other American, just to know."

Fleischer responded in his daily news briefing.

"I have to say, with disappointment, that Mrs. Clinton, having seen that same headline, did not call the White House, did not ask if it was accurate or not," he said.

"Instead, she immediately went to the floor of the Senate, and I'm sorry to say that she followed that headline and divided."

Hours later, the freshman senator fired back.

"What I said is completely in line with what was said by other senators on both sides of the aisle who are asking respectfully for information to respond to questions that are legitimately being posed by the American public," she told reporters.

"We have a responsibility to ask for information, and I think that is not only appropriate but necessary. You know, nobody is more entitled to answers to these questions than the people of New York, and I take that responsibility very seriously."

She added: "I am seeking answers and information. I am not looking to point fingers or place blame on anybody."
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 24, 2013, 10:56:49 AM
With the interim House committee report (sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the exact title at the moment) calling Hillary a liar on Benghazi yesterday, the incongruity is particularly glaring.
Title: Prosecute Hillary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 01, 2013, 11:23:16 AM
Prosecute Hillary.
Last week, Speaker Boehner published an Interim Progress Report from the Committees investigating Benghazi that affirms, with absolutely no doubt, that Hillary Clinton lied under oath.
Despite her assertion that she had never seen any documents telling of a heightened threat or requesting increased security, she personally signed off on a drawdown of embassy security personnel in Libya.
All of her "emotional testimony," all of her assertions that "what difference does it make" about the reason Americans died in Benghazi, all of the snide remarks of the Administration about the Republican investigation are now revealed as nothing but a disgusting attempt to hide from the truth and deceive the American people.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
What needs to happen at this point is abundantly clear.
You don't lie about the death of four Americans – including two Navy SEALs – and get away with it. It's time for former Secretary of State Clinton to be prosecuted for perjury.
The case for prosecution is well established, and there are no grounds to give Hillary a pass. In fact, the report by the House explicitly states that Secretary Clinton was "seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."
There is a strong precedent for taking such action against a senior Administration official. In 2005, Scooter Libby – the Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney – was indicted on charges of two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice in relation to the Plume affair. Libby resigned his government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.
If you'll recall from back then, liberals in the government and in the media were doing everything but calling for Libby's head. They were practically frothing at the mouth with indignation that he'd leaked information to the press and lied about it. No one had died, no American property had been destroyed – just the politics of it was enough.
But of course it's different when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Whitehouse Spokesman Jay Carney has already started the liberal spin machine at full throttle, making the outrageous assertion that Hillary signed off on all kinds of things – we can't expect her to actually read what she's signing.

Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.

As far as this White House is concerned – and the vast majority of the mainstream media – lying under oath is no big deal. Sure, a few American heroes may have been murdered. Radical Islamists may have destroyed our "diplomatic facility"; with rocket launchers. Our own Ambassador may have been slain. But you can't possibly expect them to take accountability for their actions – or even expect them to own up to their mistakes. That's simply beneath a member of the Obama Administration.
This despicable arrogance has to stop. And, since there is absolutely no indication that Barack Obama or his liberal allies have any intention of taking responsibility, we must do everything in our power to bring them to justice.
The fact of the matter is that the tragedy in Benghazi could have very likely been averted if it weren't for Hillary's signature on that document months prior. She knew the dangers. She knew what the people on the ground saw, and she knew what they needed to deal with it.
But Hillary Clinton didn't do a damn thing about it. And because of that, people died. Then she willingly and repeatedly lied to the American people, to the media, and – while under oath – to Congress.
We're demanding that she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If you want to see justice served, and this destructive administration finally held accountable, I urge you in the strongest terms to join us on this mission. Talk to your friends and neighbors, and share this message with everyone you know.
Speaker Boehner is showing his willingness to do right by our service people by releasing this report. Now we have to let him and the rest of Washington know that this needs to be the beginning, and not the end.

Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
We need a chorus of voices from all across America demanding that Hillary – and any other member of the Obama Administration involved in the Benghazi cover-up – be indicted immediately. Our service people abroad and the American people deserve accountability from the United States government.
We must never allow those who put everything on the line for this country to receive such an abhorrent disservice and then have the whole affair swept under the rug. It's time to restore responsibility and honor to our government.
That starts with indicting – and ultimately prosecuting – Hillary Clinton for her lies.
Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks
P.S. Everything we have seen from this administration since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, points to a colossal leadership failure in the Obama Administration and their attempts to cover up the truth about what happened. And now, the smoking gun, HILLARY LIED.It is up to us to hold them accountable and to demand real leadership. Please help us hold their feet to the fire with any contribution you can afford. And then sign the petition today to demand a special select committee to investigate the truth about what happened on September 11, 2012.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on May 08, 2013, 02:20:59 PM
CCP in Benghazi thread:  "Yesterday the sleaze in ex chief - Bill announced Hillary is not definitely running for his past job...."

She polls well because of being out of day to day, issue politics for 5 years.  George W. Bush raised his numbers above Obama's the same way.  Saying she is out forever is a way of making her malfeasance and refusal to give answers in the Benghazi scandal less important.  Needless to say they want this scandal to go away.

The way we know if the Clintons are lying is to watch closely and see if their lips are moving.  The problem with listening to liars is that it is a waste of time.  We get no information whatsoever about whether she will run or won't run by hearing either of them saying anything either way, especially during the investigation of one of their scandals.

Hillary said under oath:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

The whole thing is a false choice.  It wasn't a protest.  It wasn't guys out for a walk.  It was a planned terror attack.  A question in response to a question is an evasion, not an answer at all.   What is the matter with her and why can't anyone hold her accountable?!

The question was: "Do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest?"

The honest answer she wouldn't say, testifying before a Congressional committee, was that she did not need to make that phone call.  She knew all along what this was and how the false cover story was concocted.

What did Haldeman or Erlichman ever do that was any worse than this, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice? 

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 08, 2013, 03:56:35 PM

"What did Haldeman, Erlichman, or Nixon ever do that was any worse than this, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice?" 

I think that reads a tad better now , , ,
Title: Rand Paul nails Hillary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 10, 2013, 03:55:03 PM
Title: Re: Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, often criminal history - Huma
Post by: DougMacG on June 17, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
Copying this over to the Clinton thread.  Huma's outside payers are most certainly part of the Clinton circle.
From ccp post, Govt programs:

ccp,  Thanks for finding this.  Huma is pretty close to the center of the political universe.  Huma is/was Hillary's closest confident.  The right wing nuts (anyone to the right of me) were sure she was Hillary's lesbian lover; Huma accompanied Hillary everywhere.  Then she was the 'Muslim' in the inner circle affecting our diplomatic policies.  She has relatives with ties to CAIR etc.(?)  Then she was set up to be Anthony Weiner's wife, a powerful and outspoken congressman - before his bizarre weiner scandal.  They had Muslim-Jewish wedding??  Then she was the wife standing by him, sort of.  Clintons did not endorse Weiner for mayor - yet.   A soft spot for sex scandals?  Huma is still with Hillary? Still with Weiner.  Now this scandal breaks.  Yes, she takes full time pay, sells access or whatever it is she is selling on the side, and we don't get to know who is involved or how this operation works.

I really don't want to spend another decade studying Clinton scandals! 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons: WSJ, Huma Abedin, Moonlight Serenade
Post by: DougMacG on June 17, 2013, 04:53:31 PM
If I may continue Huma Abedin coverage in the Clinton thread, did she really not take her husbands last name?  This also goes under the category of famous people reading the forum, James Tarato, online editor for the WSJ jumps in on our coverage:

Weiner "defended his wife" during a Saturday campaign appearance. "I'm proud of my wife and I'm proud of the work she's done," he said, adding that "she has done everything completely above-board with approval of the State Department."

  - Approval of the State Dept?  Approval of a Clinton is not exactly the gold standard of ethics, even in Washington.

Moonlight Serenade
Whom does Mrs. Weiner work for?


Anthony Weiner, who resigned from Congress two years ago this Friday in a side-splitting social-media scandal, is running for mayor of New York? We don't know why, but we're now pretty sure it's not for the money. The New York Post reports that Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, "hauled in as much as $350,000 in outside income on top of Abedin's $135,000 government salary."

Far be it from this columnist to begrudge the Weiners their financial success. What's eyebrow-raising about this, though, is that Abedin, who works for the State Department, is the source of some of that outside income:

    Abedin, who served as [Hillary] Clinton's deputy chief of staff when Clinton was secretary of state, later became a 'special government employee' who was able to haul in cash as a private contractor. . . .

    One of the clients she did consulting work for while on the government payroll was Teneo Holdings, a firm founded by longtime Bill Clinton aide Doug Band.

The Post reports that Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican the paper describes as "one of the Senate's most aggressive investigators," is looking into the matter. In a letter to Abedin and now-Secretary John Kerry, Grassley "wrote that he was concerned Abedin's status 'blurs the line between public- and private-sector employees, especially when employees receive full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work.' " Grassley also "suggested Abedin was providing clients 'political intelligence,' " a claim denied by an unnamed "person close to Abedin."


New York's Daily News reports that white-knight Weiner "defended his wife" during a Saturday campaign appearance. "I'm proud of my wife and I'm proud of the work she's done," he said, adding that "she has done everything completely above-board with approval of the State Department."

That may well be true--in which case the scandal here may be what's above board rather than what's below it. The Post reports that an unnamed State Department official "noted there were 100 such consultants at the agency."

A hundred Abedin-size salaries would add up to $13.5 million--presumably not counting benefits--being paid to people whose work for the department has to compete with their outside gigs for their time and attention. Are they thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest? If so, that's an additional expense for the taxpayers. If not, we can't rule out the possibility that some State Department workers are trading on their access to what Grassley calls "political intelligence."
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 17, 2013, 05:21:45 PM

Yes, please use this thread for Huma Abedin
Title: Clinton confidante suspected
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 18, 2013, 09:34:32 AM
Title: Hillary straps on and looks to bend over the First Amendment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 19, 2013, 08:08:35 AM
Title: Pro-Hillary 'journalist' says Dump Bill Now
Post by: DougMacG on June 19, 2013, 08:45:38 AM

Hillary Has to Dump Bill Now
By Margaret Carlson Jun 18, 2013  Bloomberg
It doesn't get much stranger.  I think Carlson is really arguing for Bill to sit down and shut up, let Hillary step out of his shadow, but she writes it like they should literally break it off for political purposes.  So much for family values.  If he quiets down for even a couple of years, does she think he would stay in her shadow as First Gentleman of the United States, read to children and work on nutritional education in schools?

It is two for the price of one.  Her record without him is to lose to a 2-year Senator of Illinois and totally bungle Benghazi.  She is a highly over-rated politician, most popular when out of the spotlight.  Biggest accomplishment was to win a Senate race in a far left state and burn a record amount of jet fuel as a member - with no access to the President except the 60 Minutes payoff performance.
Title: Jeb Bush to give Liberty Medal to Hillary?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2013, 02:58:08 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 28, 2013, 06:39:14 PM
Could anyone imagine Clinton honoring their political enemy like this?

All they have to do when she runs against Bush is replay this image of him honoring her.   

Title: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, often criminal history, Liberty award?
Post by: DougMacG on June 28, 2013, 09:23:06 PM
Could anyone imagine Clinton honoring their political enemy like this?
All they have to do when she runs against Bush is replay this image of him honoring her.   

I don't know what good it does, but I share your reaction to this.  We live in an anti-liberty tsunami.  How is liberty going in your business, Doc?  Coercive Paternalism might be a better descriptor than Liberty.  Though she was only Sec of State, these are the policies she is working to advance too.  The results are a human tragedy. 

Hillary was negligent in her own duties, failing to answer the security challenge in Benghazi and a co-conspirator to cover that up after the fact.  That is in addition to her prior, "long, sordid, and often criminal history".  But she wins the liberty award.  Unbelievable.

"Clinton traveled to 112 countries"

That is how we measure success in 2013?  These were the places where "Chris" Stevens could not reach her.  One million miles on the taxpayer dime and liberty moved backwards around the globe on her watch. 

But the elites honor the elites for "Liberty", while ignoring the loss of liberty of the people.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2013, 09:55:44 PM
The craven stupidity of this is mind-boggling.

At least it proves that Jeb Bush is not presidential material.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 29, 2013, 01:49:05 PM
Maybe Rush is wrong.   Maybe it is not about the money after all .  Perhaps some Republicans are just that stupid?  :-(
Title: The Huma Unmentionables
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 25, 2013, 07:49:36 AM
posting this here as well for reasons of facilitating future searches:

The Corner

The one and only.
The Huma Unmentionables
By  Andrew C. McCarthy
July 24, 2013 4:58 PM

Charlotte’s revulsion over Huma Abedin’s calculated “stand by your man” routine is surely right. Still, it is amazing, as we speculate about Ms. Abedin’s political future, that the elephant in the room goes unnoticed, or at least studiously unmentioned.

Sorry to interrupt the Best Enabler of a Sociopath Award ceremony but, to recap, Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.

Ms. Abedin’s late father, Dr. Zyed Abedin, was recruited by Naseef to run the JMMA in Saudi Arabia. The journal was operated under the management of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a virulently anti-Semitic and sharia-supremacist organization. When Dr. Abedin died, editorial control of the journal passed to his wife, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin — Huma’s mother.

Saleha Abedin is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to supporters of violent jihad. Among other things, she directs an organization – the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child. The IICWC, through its parent entity (the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief), is a component of the Union for Good (also known as the Union of Good), another formally designated terrorist organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel. (As detailed here, the Obama White House recently hosted Qaradawi’s principal deputy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah, who also endorsed the fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq.)

Like Sheikh Qaradawi, who helped write the charter for the IICWC, Saleha Abedin is an influential sharia activist who has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad. Dr. Abedin has nevertheless been hailed in the progressive press as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” (to quote Foreign Policy). What they never quite get around to telling you is that this means “women’s rights” in the repressive sharia context.

Back to daughter Huma. In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.

As I’ve recounted before, the MSA chapter to which Ms. Abedin belonged at George Washington University

    has an intriguing history. In 2001 [to be clear, that is after Ms. Abedin had graduated from GWU], its spiritual guide was . . . Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. Awlaki himself had led the MSA chapter at Colorado State University in the early nineties. As Patrick Poole has demonstrated, Awlaki is far from the only jihadist to hone his supremacist ideology in the MSA’s friendly confines. In the eighties, Wael Jalaidan ran the MSA at the University of Arizona. He would soon go on to help Osama bin Laden found al-Qaeda; he also partnered with the Abedin family’s patron, Abdullah Omar Naseef, to establish the [aforementioned] Rabita Trust — formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law due to its funding of al-Qaeda.

Ms. Abedin served as one of Secretary of State Clinton’s top staffers and advisers at the State Department. As I’ve previously detailed, during that time, the State Department strongly supported abandoning the federal government’s prior policy against official dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. State, furthermore, embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:

    The State Department had an emissary in Egypt who trained operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures.
    The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
    Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
    The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
    The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
    The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
    The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
    The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
    On a trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta then governing the country, to surrender power to the parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the then–newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a top Brotherhood official. She also visited with Morsi; immediately after his victory, Morsi had proclaimed that his top priorities included pressuring the United States to release the Blind Sheikh. Quite apart from the Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed “grand jihad” to destroy the United States . . . the group’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, publicly called for jihad against the United States in an October 2010 speech. After it became clear the Brotherhood would win the parliamentary election, Badie said the victory was a stepping stone to “the establishment of a just Islamic caliphate.”

As more recent events remind us, this is not an exhaustive account of Obama-administration coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is just some of the lowlights.

When a handful of House conservatives tried to draw the attention of the State Department’s inspector general to some of these matters – wondering how on earth someone with Ms. Abdein’s background could have qualified for a top-secret security clearance – they were castigated by the Obama White House and the Beltway Republican establishment. As reaffirmed in the last 24 hours, Ms. Abedin’s connections to prominent Islamic-supremacist figures and groups are deemed unsuitable for public discussion – Egyptians may be able to eject the Muslim Brotherhood, but in today’s Washington it is raising questions about the Muslim Brotherhood that gets you run out of town.

Naturally, what did get Washington chattering was a scandal far more typical in Clinton circles — the lucrative arrangement Ms. Abedin struck with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department that allowed her, after returning from maternity leave, to draw a $135,000 State Department salary while remaining in New York, not actually working at Foggy Bottom, and moonlighting as a “strategic consultant” for an outfit called Teneo – founded by Bill Clinton’s chum Doug Band.

What a racket. The marriage to Huma Abedin, a Clinton insider, enables Anthony Weiner to resurrect a debased career and deflect attention from his psychotic antics even as he continues them. The marriage to Anthony Weiner, a prominent Jewish progressive, enables Huma Abedin to deflect attention from her associations with various Islamic supremacists even as, during her tenure as a top State Department official, American policy embraces Islamic supremacists.

But let’s not discuss that.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 26, 2013, 07:04:39 AM
Bari Weiss: If Huma and Hillary Were Emailing...
'I only wish Anthony could have channeled a bit more of Bill . . . Say hi to Big Dog for me.'


Dear Hillary,

I'm listening to "Stand by Your Man" on repeat and baking cookies. Also considering joining Twitter—@MrsCarlosDanger has a real ring to it, don't you think?


Seriously, just when you think it can't get worse, here comes another 20-something from another dank corner of the Internet. And this woman— her last name is Leathers, you can't make this stuff up—is straight out of "Jersey Shore" with that above-the-lip piercing. Except she's from Indiana. It's like a vast fright-wing conspiracy.

Remind me to cancel those private Zumba lessons.

The good news is that Anthony's hanging on: Sure, he took a hit in the polls, but nobody's loving Christine Quinn—her favorables are terrible. And before Tuesday, we had out-raised every other Democrat in the field. Your blessing has been gold. Can't thank you enough.

Let me know if you can swing by. Anthony's not much in evidence; would love to talk next steps.



Huma dear:

I'm sorry I can't meet up. Bill isn't thrilled by the Anthony comparisons, so it's best for me to lie low. Anyway, re: Tuesday's presser. You were masterful.

Our phone's ringing off the hook with donors asking when Weiner's dropping out and Abedin's getting in. Perfect combination of stoic and vulnerable, dignified and authentic, they say. Only you could pull off that "whole lotta therapy" line. Bravo.

Did you see what Tina Brown tweeted? "Huma for mayor—she has all the qualities he doesn't." Same with Nate Silver: "Huma should have run for mayor; she'd win in a landslide." I'll have someone put in a call to get him working on some numbers.

Hang in there. As Rahm would have said if he really understood politics: Never let a soul-crushing marital crisis go to waste. This is far from over.

More soon. I'm bingeing on "House of Cards." Again.


Dearest Hill:

What can I say? I learned from the best. Your '92 interview on "60 Minutes" was my game tape. Anthony's communications team thought it would be best for me to stay home this week, but when I watched you deliver that line—"I'm sitting here because I love him and I respect him"—I realized what I had to do for myself. Anthony, too, of course. My "I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him" bit is in every article right now.

Enlarge Image
Getty Images

Huma Abedin and her former boss.

I only wish Anthony could have channeled a bit more of Bill. A few tried to string him up for this line: "In many ways, what happened today is something that, frankly, had happened before, but it doesn't represent all that much that is new." Let's just say he couldn't get away with it like Bill did when he told Steve Kroft "anyone who's listening gets the drift of it." But you've always told me that you've got to work with what you've got. He'll learn.

Someone on TV Wednesday said you're the "pro" of taking an "embarrassing situation and owning it and winning in the long run."

Couldn't have put it better myself. My question now is how long is the long run.

I wasn't thinking of running until 2017, but our story is bigger than the royal baby so I'm reconsidering. Thanks for having Silver look into those figures. (He's going to ESPN? Really? Why?)

What did you think of my Harper's Bazaar spread? I cringed at the headline, "The Good Wife," but now I'm thinking it's great positioning for me. Nice pushback to Anthony's brother telling the New York Times that I'm a political animal.

Say hi to Big Dog for me. Curious if he has any advice.

Gratefully yours,



Bill says to stick it out. This will fade if Anthony can get through this week. And he can—just keep him glad-handing in Staten Island, outdoors, where it's bright and there's no Wi-Fi. Get him talking about how he grew up in a hardworking middle-class family in Brooklyn. It's the economy, stupid. Etc. If folks think Anthony's going to make rent cheaper, they won't think twice about his utter lack of personal loyalty or honesty. I know whereof I speak.

You're less than 50 days to the primary. It's a weak field, and if Anthony sticks to the issues beside his sympathetic bride, he'll win. And in the general, who are voters going to pick? A Republican? Give me a break.

Once he's in City Hall, your path is clear. I'll give his office the aides we discussed and it'll be a perfect satellite for Hillaryland. It will be discreet, of course—no Hillary 2016 wall banners just yet. But you can meet with donors on the down low and then your path will be up to you.

Huma for mayor? Or my old Senate seat? Selfishly I'd love to have you in the White House, but it will be your call. I never make a promise I can't keep.

Talk soon,


Ms. Weiss is the associate editorial features editor at the Journal.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on July 28, 2013, 06:13:04 PM
No question she must have gotten an A in her body language class.   Shoulders back, chin up, straight erect spine, one hand at side while other gestures with authority.  But Diane Lane, I hardly think so.
Title: 2nd post in duo
Post by: ccp on July 28, 2013, 06:13:51 PM;_ylt=A0oG7kkEwfVR1xkAi8FXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGJjawM0dTllN2E5OHZiZWpoJTI2YiUzRDQlMjZkJTNEMkhKdmdibHBZRUt5YlFGMk1pRlExZVNsVDZUdFEycjJseWtuUkEtLSUyNnMlM0RsOCUyNmklM0RJMlJMalBTTDFhZTlxc1NoOFRITwRjc3JjcHZpZANOVW1QOWtnZXVyQlBKY2RTVWZXNmNSSDFHT1MxbzFIMXdRUUFDdVRPBGZyA2ZwLXR0cy0xMjAEZnIyA3NiLXRvcARncHJpZANWbjJMd1FXRVRpLkVrVUZOLkVSajFBBG5fcnNsdAMxMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDMTAEcXVlcnkDZGlhbmUgbGFuZQR0X3N0bXADMTM3NTA2MDM5NDk4MgR2dGVzdGlkA0FDQlkwNQ--?p=diane+lane&fr2=sb-top&fr=fp-tts-120
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2013, 09:37:43 PM
Ugh.  Diane Lane is a good actress , , , and can be quite hot (e.g. as Richard Gere's cheating wife who drove him to murder).
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on July 29, 2013, 06:59:58 AM
"and can be quite hot";  That is what I mean.  Does anyone think Hillary can be quite hot?  And as I thought.   Except for some exceptions the crat machine was silent about Weiner until comparisons with the Clintons began.  Now the Clinton "machine" will dispose of them.   Including Alexrod who is going to protect Hillary.   And as the article below points out, who is Huma.  She is nobody next to the former first lady and sec of state and senator.  There is simply nothing to compare the two with:

******Bill and Hillary Clinton are 'livid' at comparisons to Weiner’s sexcapades and Huma’s forgiveness
Last Updated: 8:19 AM, July 29, 2013
Posted:  1:40 AM, July 29, 2013

Fredric U. Dicker

 Bill and Hillary Clinton are angry with efforts by mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner and his campaign to compare his Internet sexcapades — and his wife Huma Abedin’s incredible forgiveness — to the Clintons’ notorious White House saga, The Post has learned.

“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.

Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State at a House Appropriations Committee hearing in 2011.Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton in 2008.Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner on their wedding day. Bill Clinton officiated the nups in the gardens of the Long Island castle.

Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State at a House Appropriations Committee hearing in 2011.

 Weiner and his campaign aides have explicitly referred to the Clintons as they privately seek to convince skeptical Democrats that voters can back Weiner despite his online sexual antics — just as they supported then-President Bill Clinton in the face of repeated allegations of marital betrayals.

“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”

A longtime Hillary aide and Clinton friend, Abedin’s surprisingly unequivocal support of her husband after his bombshell admission Tuesday that he engaged in salacious online sexting well after he resigned in disgrace from Congress in 2011 left the Clintons stunned, continued the source.

“Hillary didn’t know Huma would do this whole stand-by-your-man routine, and that’s one of the reasons the Clintons are distancing themselves from all this nonsense,’’ the source said.

Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State at a House Appropriations Committee hearing in 2011.Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton in 2008.Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner on their wedding day. Bill Clinton officiated the nups in the gardens of the Long Island castle.

In the view of many Democrats, the Weiners have also alluded more subtly to the Clintons.

For instance, Abedin, with her husband at her side, declared last week, “Our marriage, like many others, has had its ups and its downs.’’

“Who didn’t think Huma was referring to the Clintons when she said that?’’ asked another prominent Democrat.

Worried about the potential impact on Hillary’s likely run for president in 2016, the political power couple has begun aggressively distancing itself from the crippled mayoral contender, according to sources.

Meanwhile, at least one prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton political operative was described as close to “going public’’ with a sharp criticism of Weiner — in order to send the message that the Clintons, fearing longtime damage to Hillary, want him out of the mayor’s race. (That would be someone other than former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, who said yesterday that she was sure the Clintons wanted Weiner out of the race.)

With all the explosive ammunition Republicans have to fire at Weiner and a handful of other disgraced Democrats, GOP activists expected Senate co-leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb to unload at least a few critical comments.

Instead, there’s been total silence from the state’s two top elected Republicans — in yet another example of the collapse of the state’s two-party system.

Skelos “couldn’t care less about what’s going on with the Democrats. He’s just focused on . . . sending out meaningless tweets,’’ said a Republican strategist.*****

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2013, 07:22:08 AM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on July 29, 2013, 07:07:11 PM
"Huma for mayor"   :roll:

Must be the same crowd that keeps telling us how beautiful she is.  :lol:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on July 30, 2013, 08:22:26 AM
"Huma for mayor"   :roll:
Must be the same crowd that keeps telling us how beautiful she is.  :lol:

She is unfit to pick a mayor and unfit to pick a husband.  MSM now turning on her:

Standing by her husband teaches her baby boy it is okay to do what to your family, when he grows up and looks back.  Her husband knows the line he cannot cross with her is nowhere. 

Sham marriage, sham people.  I can only think that in the confidence of their arranged relationship he has plenty on her too, and it all has to do with Hillary.

It is a waste of time thinking about this.  He would be a terrible mayor without these problems and the people will choose the policies of Detroit no matter who is left running.  Too bad for America.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2013, 08:45:52 AM
So why wasn't/isn't this being applied to Hillary?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on July 30, 2013, 09:31:28 AM
So why wasn't/isn't this being applied to Hillary?

Yes, why not?

John Hinderacker at Powerline has a lengthy piece on the Hillary media wave today. 
The funny thing about Hillary Clinton is how vastly her reputation exceeds her accomplishments. In reality, the only reason anyone has heard of her is that she married Bill Clinton. Otherwise, she would have toiled away as an obscure, reasonably competent if obnoxious lawyer. She was a relatively unpopular First Lady who is best remembered for being embarrassed by her husband’s serial infidelities. She served a brief term as a Senator from New York, a role in which she achieved nothing. Then she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, and punched her ticket during a singularly unsuccessful stint as Secretary of State. Never has she had an original thought, formulated a successful strategy, or stepped out of the shadow of her singular husband." 

He wonders which actress under consideration for the two big jobs coming up looks most like her. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on July 30, 2013, 10:58:10 AM
BBG once posted a pic from Battlefield Earth that had John Travolta looking amazing Hillary-like.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ppulatie on July 30, 2013, 12:10:11 PM

You had to ruin your post by posting a photo of the old hag.  Turned my stomach.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2013, 01:14:36 PM
Back during Willie's first term there was a major piece on the editorial page of the WSJ by the lawyer who had been at the IRS in the late 1970s in charge of commodities futures fraud investigations in which he described the skullduggery by which Hillary made her $79,000 in commodities trading.  A VERY powerful piece.  GM, or anyone, is your google fu up to finding this?   
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on July 30, 2013, 01:24:26 PM
Back during Willie's first term there was a major piece on the editorial page of the WSJ by the lawyer who had been at the IRS in the late 1970s in charge of commodities futures fraud investigations in which he described the skullduggery by which Hillary made her $79,000 in commodities trading.  A VERY powerful piece.  GM, or anyone, is your google fu up to finding this?   

Thus far, I found this:

Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed
By Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 1994; Page A01

Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.

The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.

The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error.

Even allocated trades would not necessarily have benefited Clinton, Melamed added. "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions," he said.

Lisa Caputo, Clinton's spokeswoman, said the documents were released yesterday "to give as complete a picture as possible" of her trades. She said Clinton had never before seen them.

Blair, who urged Clinton to enter the high-risk futures market and ordered most of her trades, said in a recent interview that he "talked her into" her first futures trade in October 1978 before paperwork on her account was completed. It was liquidated quickly, he recalled, because "it was bigger than she wanted and required more money."

A close examination of her individual trades underscores Blair's pivotal role. It also shows that Robert L. "Red" Bone, who ran the Springdale, Ark., office of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), allowed Clinton to initiate and maintain many trading positions – besides the first – when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them.

Why would Bone do so? Bone could not be reached for comment, but Blair said he thought he knew why. "I was a very good customer," he said, noting he paid Bone $800,000 in commissions over the years. "They weren't going to hassle me. If I brought them somebody, they weren't going to hassle them."

Besides, he added, Bone would not worry if he agreed with his clients' bet on which way the price of a given contract would go.

Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client. At the time of many of the trades, Bill Clinton was governor.

Hillary Clinton has said she made all the trading decisions herself and has tried to play down Blair's role. But she acknowledged in April, three weeks after her trades were first disclosed, that Blair actually placed most of the trades.

Blair advised Clinton again on July 17, 1979. He recalled that she started that trading day by losing $26,460 on 10 cattle contracts she had held for more than a month, by far her worst loss as a futures player. On his recommendation, he said, she immediately went back into the market. She acquired 50 new cattle contracts – worth $1.4 million -- and when the price moved in her favor, unloaded them around noon for a quick gain of $10,550. This recouped part of her loss.

Blair said Clinton and other friends he suggested trades for had lost money that spring on feeder cattle. Those trades "caused everyone some grief," he said. "I'm sure I was pressing to get everyone back above water" in recommending the quick and bold day trade.

The White House defense of Hillary Clinton's preferential treatment was that other customers in the same office also were allowed to trade without having enough cash in their accounts.

While Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades -- those of 50 contracts or more. Clinton traded positions of 50 or more contracts only three times.

The records the White House released yesterday were part of an investigative file from 1979, when the exchange charged Bone and Refco with violations of its record keeping and margin requirement rules. Bone was suspended for three years; Refco paid a $250,000 fine, then the largest in the exchange's history. Internal memos from that investigation cover transactions from the same period in June in which Clinton was trading, but not the same trades. In one instance, the Merc found Bone and a fellow broker were ordering 1,000 cattle contracts at a time – far over the limit allowed at the time – and then allocating them to other customers.

One internal Merc memo said "there is reason to believe" that a majority of Bone's accounts were traded without the clients' permission. Blair said that Bone at times traded his personal account without permission.

Blair said he doubted Bone traded Clinton's account without her permission.

Melamed said it was "impossible" to determine the exact cause for the discrepancies between the Merc computer record of Clinton's trades and the trading records she received from Refco, which the White House released earlier.

She said that for six trades, her initial trading position in the Refco records were not reflected in the Merc documents. On one other trade neither her purchase nor sale was included. On that trade she netted $12,150 on 15 cattle contracts she held for four days.

Clinton reported a loss of $2,480 on one of the trades in question, Melamed noted.

One was a "day trade" on hog contracts that netted $2,553. Melamed said "day trades" are the only way to assure profit even if favorable trading positions are allocated to a customer's account. Any position held overnight would be subject to the rise and fall in prices in the volatile futures market, he added.

Staff researcher Barbara J. Saffir contributed to this report.

In commodities futures trading, an account that falls below the "maintenance margin" typically triggers a "margin call," where the trader must put up sufficient cash to cover the contracts. Although Hillary Rodham Clinton's account was under-margined for nearly all of July 1979, no margin calls were made, no additional cash was put up, and she eventually reaped a $60,000 profit.

June 29 ......... $56,466 (Margin: Value account should have had to continue trading.)

July 12 ........ -$24,243

July 17 ......... $22,537 (Account value: Total cash on hand plus (or minus) paper value of contracts.)

July 20 ......... $61,537

July 23, 1979: She withdrew $60,000 and never traded again, closing the account in October.
Title: WSJ: Hypocrisy and Hyergamy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2013, 06:41:26 PM

Nice work on finding that info so quickly on Hillary's magical career in trading commodities!  The WSJ article by the IRS lawyer is even better-- it shows how it was all a pay-off by Tyson Foods (the largest employer in Arkansas) to the wife of the then-candidate for governor.  Any chance you can run it down? 

Hypocrisy and Hypergamy
Behind the Huma-Hillary double standard.
Who the heck does Huma think she is? That's the question "a top [New York] state Democrat" is asking about Anthony Weiner's wife, according to a report by Fred Dicker of the New York Post. "The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner's campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,'' Dicker's Dem declares. "How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state."

Being called low-class by the Clintons has got to hurt. But we don't see how Dicker's source's comparison works to Huma's disadvantage. Yes, Mrs. Clinton was a U.S. senator and secretary of state--but that was after Bill hid behind her skirts during both the 1992 campaign and the 1998-99 Monica Lewinsky scandal. Before 2001, she had never held a job in politics or government--in contrast with Huma, who was already a top State Department aide when, in 2011, Weiner was first exposed as having exposed himself.

And Hillary's defenses of her husband were far more outlandish than Huma's. "I'm not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette," Arkansas's then-first lady told "60 Minutes" in 1992. Her denial was literally accurate, since to sit standing is a contradiction in terms. But even as she literally sat, she figuratively stood by Bill, making her denial reminiscent of Richard Nixon's "I'm not a crook."

One of them abased herself to help her husband's political career. The other was an aide to the secretary of state.

Her 1998 defense called to mind Nixon's attack dog, Spiro Agnew. In an interview with NBC's "Today," she waved away Bill's Oval Office hanky panky by denouncing his political detractors: "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

We suppose it would be an even greater strain on credulity for Huma to posit a vast right-wing anti-Weiner conspiracy. In famously liberal New York, right-wingers would be lucky to assemble a half-vast conspiracy. Even so, it seems clear that Huma has conducted herself with considerably more grace and dignity than Hillary did. We say that not as a Huma admirer, merely as an observer sufficiently fair-minded to credit her with living up to a low standard.

Yet Dicker's anonymous source isn't alone. Prominent members of the media elite have joined in dumping on the Weiners while expressing their admiration for the Clintons. Here's the Washington Post's Sally Quinn (no relation, as far as we know, to Weiner rival Christine Quinn):

    Though [Huma's] friends say she is strong and resolute and defiant, sadly she makes all women look like weak and helpless victims. She was not standing there in a position of strength. It was such a setback for women everywhere.

Did Hillary deal "women everywhere" a "setback" back in the 1990s? Quinn doesn't say in this post, but in another one last month she was considerably less judgmental:

    Hillary Clinton is well known for her faith. She went to Sunday school and attended church all of her life, taught Sunday school, was a member of the altar guild and youth groups. When she came to Washington in 1993, she joined a Bible study group. She says she was sent daily scriptures from her group. She was dubbed Saint Hillary at one point for her religious leanings and even made a speech referencing Rabbi Michael Lerner's "The Politics of Meaning." When she became a senator, she joined the Senate Prayer Breakfast. She has always been supportive of federal funding for faith-based initiatives. When asked in an interview after the Monica Lewinsky scandal how she had gotten through it, Clinton referred to her "very serious" grounding in faith and talked about her "extended faith family" who helped her out, as well as "people whom I knew who were literally praying for me in prayer circles, who were prayer warriors for me."

By contrast, Quinn is dismissive of Huma's faith: "So why has Abedin done this? Some have suggested that her Muslim background and growing up in Saudi Arabia have skewed her views of how women should be treated. But she's been away from that for too long."

Here's how Daily Beast editor Tina Brown concludes a denunciation of Weiner:

    The trouble with Carlos [Danger, Weiner's nom de net] and his ilk is they're not just a danger to themselves, but a danger to everyone else. One look at the humiliated face of the elegant Huma Abedin, spear-carrier for Hillary Clinton's women's-empowerment message, will tell you that.

While it's possible Brown means to be sarcastic about "Hillary Clinton's women's-empowerment message," we doubt it. The cover story of Brown's inaugural issue of then-magazine Newsweek was a puff piece about "how she's shattering glass ceilings everywhere."

What accounts for the contrast between the disparagement of Huma and the reverence for Hillary? It won't do to say that Mrs. Clinton is more accomplished now than Mrs. Weiner, for Huma's now-critics treated Hillary no less kindly back then. No, the only possible explanation is the one the Washington Post's Eric Wemple puts forth:

    The distinction may have more to do with political gifts than marital particulars. Despite his high media profile, Weiner is a former House member who was the the lead sponsor of only one bill that actually became law. Clinton was a successful two-term president of the United States, and he went on to be the head of a global philanthropic enterprise.

So Hillary is admired and Huma maligned because Hillary married better. Isn't feminism wonderful?
Title: Slick Willie's Weiner issue
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 01, 2013, 06:36:13 AM
Title: OMG, Chelsea too?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2013, 08:02:11 AM
Title: Hillary votes for Iraq War
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 12, 2013, 01:18:22 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on August 15, 2013, 06:38:51 AM
How is it one day Drudge has report on the NYT article at corruption within the Clinton Foundation and the next day the NYT website crashes and one can barely find any other reports about it?

Amazing what money and power can do.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2013, 07:44:00 AM
Yeah, I went to read it but couldn't get to it.  What did Drudge say?

Title: WSJ: Queen Hillary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2013, 07:59:26 PM
Queen Hillary?
Political rent-seeking and her expected coronation.

The New York Times gave us an amusing juxtaposition earlier this week. Editorialist David Firestone sang the praises of Hillary Clinton's deceptive and pandering speech in which she denounced measures against voter fraud, and he called on Mrs. Clinton to mount another favorite Times hobbyhorse:

    Campaign finance issues deserve a speech just as impassioned as the one on voting rights, and it will be interesting to see if Ms. Clinton devotes more time to the subject than President Obama has.

    Building a campaign around these kinds of issues particularly non-partisan redistricting and easy registration--has always been seen as too narrow and too wonky for a major candidate. But Ms. Clinton's political future, not to mention the health of her party and her country, depend on someone taking them on and not letting go. And should Ms. Clinton succeed Mr. Obama, she will encounter precisely the same kind of blanket opposition in the House unless she starts trying to change it now.

Firestone is confusing his categories here: Redistricting and voter registration are not "campaign finance issues," and while the federal government has broad authority to regulate registration, redistricting is almost entirely a state prerogative. The Voting Rights Act does give the feds some involvement in redistricting, but it cuts in the opposite direction of "nonpartisan redistricting": Washington presses states to create "majority minority" districts. Given current voting patterns, that leads to a concentration of Democratic voters, making surrounding districts easier for Republicans to carry.

But what intrigues us is the way in which laws restricting political speech--in the areas of both campaign finance and taxation--are vital to, as Firestone puts it, "Ms. Clinton's political future."

We noted Tuesday that Mrs. Clinton is using her sinecure at the Clinton Foundation--a charity that is fully tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code--as a "formal apparatus" to prepare for a prospective campaign for president in 2016. Yesterday's Times features a lengthy investigative report on the foundation:

    Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.

    The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton's early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in. . . .

    Worried that the foundation's operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton's nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. . . .

    And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons' charity work from Mr. Clinton's moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton's political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.

Difficult it no doubt is. It would be insurmountable if the Clintons (Bill in particular) lacked the star power that makes raising a $250 million endowment a feasible goal. That kind of money will enable the Clintons to buy the legal expertise to make sure everything they do complies with the letter of the law--no matter how shady it may seem to use a 501(c)(3) charity as a political vehicle.

Enlarge Image
Associated Press

You've never heard of him, but he's Maryland's governor.

No wonder that, as Politico reports, other prospective Democratic presidential candidates are despairing: "The Democratic field has largely been frozen in place as party leaders give near-total deference to [Mrs.] Clinton, the former secretary of state who is a prohibitive favorite in early Democratic primary polling. . . . For any non-Clinton Democrat, exploring the 2016 election is something of an exercise in perceived futility."

To be sure, the Clinton Foundation's wealth isn't the only reason Mrs. Clinton looms far larger than any of her prospective opponents. The field is somewhat weak owing to the Democrats' disastrous performance in the 2010 election. (Republicans had the same problem in 2008 and 2012.) Unless you count Joe Biden, Mrs. Clinton is the only prospective candidate who has previously run for president.

And of course, she was thought inevitable in 2008. Then again, back then, according to the Times, her husband's foundation "found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign for donors amid a recession." For now, the foundation and the "campaign" are one and the same, and one expects that if Mrs. Clinton begins a formal campaign some two years hence, it and the foundation will operate much more harmoniously this time around.

On Tuesday we asked if the Internal Revenue Service would investigate the Clinton Foundation for evidently acting as a front group for a political campaign. The question was facetious; as we wrote, the Obama IRS only goes after little guys.

The biggest problem with the IRS scandal, of course, is that it involved viewpoint discrimination: Conservative groups were at far greater risk than liberal ones of intrusive scrutiny. That is why one cannot rule out the possibility that the 2012 election was stolen on Obama's behalf.

Democrats have tried to wave this problem away by pointing to a handful of unlucky lefties that got caught in the net. The scandal would be less severe if the IRS had in fact been evenhanded in its persecution of small political groups. But it would still have been a problem for American democracy, and the Clinton Foundation story shows why.

By their nature, complex and burdensome regulations on political speech--whether in campaign finance statutes or in the tax code--are easier to comply with when you have a lot of money and can afford to hire the best legal talent. Just as in the private marketplace, regulation gives incumbents a huge advantage over upstart challengers.

Technically, Mrs. Clinton is not an incumbent, but the Clintons' dynastic strategizing has given her the advantages of incumbency and then some. If she turns out to be the 45th president, she will owe her position in large part to rent-seeking. David Firestone is right to say that her political future depends on "campaign finance issues." He's dead wrong to suggest that puts her somehow on the side of good government.
Title: Clinton Foundation - looks like a lot of people getting rich behind this
Post by: ccp on August 16, 2013, 05:34:30 PM
New York Times
Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.

The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

The review set off more than a year of internal debate, and spurred an evolution in the organization that included Mr. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, taking on a dominant new role as the family grappled with the question of whether the foundation — and its globe-spanning efforts to combat AIDS, obesity and poverty — would survive its founder.

Now those efforts are taking on new urgency. In the coming weeks, the foundation, long Mr. Clinton’s domain since its formation in 2001, will become the nerve center of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly busy public life.

This fall, Mrs. Clinton and her staff will move into offices at the foundation’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, occupying two floors of the Time-Life Building. Amid speculation about her 2016 plans, Mrs. Clinton is adding major new initiatives on women, children and jobs to what has been renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Worried that the foundation’s operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton’s nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. And after years of relying on Bruce R. Lindsey, the former White House counsel whose friendship with Mr. Clinton stretches back decades, to run the organization while living part-time in Arkansas, the family has hired a New York-based chief executive with a background in management consulting.

“We’re trying to institutionalize the foundation so that it will be here long after the lives of any of us,” Mr. Lindsey said. “That’s our challenge and that is what we are trying to address.”

But the changing of the guard has aggravated long-simmering tensions within the former first family’s inner circle as the foundation tries to juggle the political and philanthropic ambitions of a former president, a potential future president, and their increasingly visible daughter.

And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.

Powered by Celebrity

Last Thursday, Mr. Clinton arrived two hours late to an exuberant welcome at a health clinic about 60 miles north of Johannesburg. Children in zebra-striped loincloths sang as Mr. Clinton and Ms. Clinton made their entrance, and the former president enthusiastically explained how his foundation had helped the South African government negotiate large reductions in the price of drugs that halt the progress of HIV. Aaron Motsoaledi, South Africa’s minister of health, heaped praise on the effort. “Because of your help we are able to treat three and a half times more people than we used to,” he told the crowd.

The project is typical of the model pioneered by the Clinton Foundation, built around dozens of partnerships with private companies, governments, or other nonprofit groups. Instead of handing out grants, the foundation recruits donors and advises them on how best to deploy their money or resources, from helping Procter & Gamble donate advanced water-purification packets to developing countries to working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents.

The foundation, which has 350 employees in 180 countries, remains largely powered by Mr. Clinton’s global celebrity and his ability to connect corporate executives, A-listers and government officials. On this month’s Africa trip, Mr. Clinton was accompanied by the actors Dakota Fanning and Jesse Eisenberg and the son of the New York City mayoral candidate John A. Catsimatidis, a longtime donor.

For most of the foundation’s existence, its leadership has been dominated by loyal veterans of the Clintons’ political lives. Ira C. Magaziner, who was a Rhodes scholar with Mr. Clinton and ran Mrs. Clinton’s failed attempt at a health care overhaul in the 1990s, is widely credited as the driving force behind the foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which, among other efforts, negotiates bulk purchasing agreements and price discounts on lifesaving medicines.

Mr. Band, who arrived at the White House in 1995 and worked his way up to become Mr. Clinton’s closest personal aide, standing behind the president on golf courses and the global stage, helped build the foundation’s fund-raising structure. He conceived of and for many years helped run the Clinton Global Initiative, the annual conference that draws hundreds of business leaders and heads of state to New York City where attendees are pushed to make specific philanthropic commitments.

Today, big-name companies vie to buy sponsorships at prices of $250,000 and up, money that has helped subsidize the foundation’s annual operating costs. Last year, the foundation and two subsidiaries had revenues of more than $214 million.

Yet the foundation’s expansion has also been accompanied by financial problems. In 2007 and 2008, the foundation also found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for donors amid a recession. Millions of dollars in contributions intended to seed an endowment were diverted to other programs, creating tension between Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Band. The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red.

Amid those shortfalls, the foundation has sometimes catered to donors and celebrities who gave money in ways that raised eyebrows in the low-key nonprofit world. In 2009, during a Clinton Global Initiative gathering at the University of Texas at Austin, the foundation purchased a first-class ticket for the actress Natalie Portman, a special guest, who brought her beloved Yorkie, according to two former foundation employees.

In interviews, foundation officials partly blamed the 2008 recession and difficulties in getting donors to provide operating support rather than restricted grants for specific programs for the deficits.

But others criticized Mr. Magaziner, who is widely seen within the foundation as impulsive and lacking organizational skills. On one occasion, Mr. Magaziner dispatched a team of employees to fly around the world for months gathering ideas for a climate change proposal that never got off the ground. Another time, he ignored a report — which was commissioned at significant expense from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company — on how the foundation could get involved in forestry initiatives.

Mr. Magaziner’s management style and difficulty keeping projects within budget were also raised in discussions that surrounded the 2011 Simpson Thacher review. (One person who attended a meeting with Mr. Magaziner recalled his lying on a conference room table in the middle of the meeting because of terrible back spasms, snapping at a staff member.)

Mr. Band repeatedly urged Mr. Clinton to fire Mr. Magaziner, according to people briefed on the matter. Mr. Clinton refused, confiding in aides that despite Mr. Magaziner’s managerial weaknesses, he was a visionary with good intentions. The former president, according to one person who knows them both, “thinks Ira is brilliant — and brilliant people get away with a lot in Clinton world.”

Indeed, by then, Mr. Magaziner had persuaded Mr. Clinton and the foundation to spin the health initiative off into a separate organization, with Mr. Magaziner as its chief executive and the Clinton Foundation appointing a majority of its board members. The financial problems continued. In 2010 and 2011, the first two years when the health initiative operated as a stand-alone organization, it ran annual shortfalls of more than $4 million. A new chief financial officer, hired in 2010, left eight months later.

A foundation official said the health initiative had only three chief financial officers in 10 years and that its financial problem was a common one in the nonprofit world: For all the grant money coming in — more than $160 million in 2011 — Mr. Magaziner had also had difficulty raising money for operating costs. But by the end of 2011, the health initiative had expanded its board, adding two seats. Chelsea Clinton took one.

Growing Ventures

As the foundation grew, so did the outside business ventures pursued by Mr. Clinton and several of his aides.

None have drawn more scrutiny in Clinton circles than Teneo, a firm co-founded in 2009 by Mr. Band, described by some as a kind of surrogate son to Mr. Clinton. Aspiring to merge corporate consulting, public relations and merchant banking in a single business, Mr. Band poached executives from Wall Street, recruited other Clinton aides to join as employees or advisers and set up shop in a Midtown office formerly belonging to one of the country’s top hedge funds.

By 2011, the firm had added a third partner, Declan Kelly, a former State Department envoy for Mrs. Clinton. And Mr. Clinton had signed up as a paid adviser to the firm.

Teneo worked on retainer, charging monthly fees as high as $250,000, according to current and former clients. The firm recruited clients who were also Clinton Foundation donors, while Mr. Band and Mr. Kelly encouraged others to become new foundation donors. Its marketing materials highlighted Mr. Band’s relationship with Mr. Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative, where Mr. Band sat on the board of directors through 2011 and remains an adviser. Some Clinton aides and foundation employees began to wonder where the foundation ended and Teneo began.

Those worries intensified after the collapse of MF Global, the international brokerage firm led by Jon S. Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey, in the fall of 2011. The firm had been among Teneo’s earliest clients, and its collapse over bad European investments — while paying $125,000 a month for the firm’s public relations and financial advice — drew Teneo and the Clintons unwanted publicity.

Mr. Clinton ended his advisory role with Teneo in March 2012, after an article appeared in The New York Post suggesting that Mrs. Clinton was angry over the MF Global controversy. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton denied the report. But in a statement released afterward, Mr. Clinton announced that he would no longer be paid by Teneo.

He also praised Mr. Band effusively, crediting him with keeping the foundation afloat and expressing hopes that Mr. Band would continue to advise the Global Initiative.

“I couldn’t have accomplished half of what I have in my post-presidency without Doug Band,” Mr. Clinton said in the statement.

Even that news release was a source of controversy within the foundation, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Band helped edit the statement, which other people around the Clintons felt gave him too much credit for the foundation’s accomplishments. (The quotation now appears as part of Mr. Band’s biography on the Teneo Web site.)

Mr. Band left his paid position with the foundation in late 2010, but has remained involved with C.G.I., as have a number of Teneo clients, like Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and UBS Americas. Standard Chartered, a British financial services company that paid a $340 million fine to New York regulators last year to settle charges that it had laundered money from Iran, is a Teneo client and a sponsor of the 2012 global initiative.

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

Officials said the foundation has established clear guidelines for the Clinton Global Initiative to help prevent any favoritism or special treatment of particular donors or sponsors.

Teneo was not the only worry: other events thrust the foundation into internal turmoil. In 2011, a wave of midlevel program staff members departed, reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization. Around the time of the Simpson Thacher review, Mr. Lindsey suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House, stepped in for several months as temporary chief executive.

While much attention has focused on Mrs. Clinton’s emerging role within the foundation, advisers to the family say her daughter’s growing involvement could prove more critical in the years ahead. After years of pursuing other career paths, including working at McKinsey & Company and a hedge fund, Ms. Clinton, 33, has begun to assert herself as a force within the foundation. Her perspective is shaped far more than her parents’ by her time in the world of business, and she is poised to play a significant role in shaping the foundation’s future, particularly if Mrs. Clinton chooses to run for president.

She formally joined the foundation’s board in 2011, marking her growing role there — and the start of intensifying tensions between her and Mr. Band. Several people close to the Clintons said that she became increasingly concerned with the negative impact Mr. Band’s outside business might have on her father’s work and that she cited concerns raised during the internal review about potential conflicts of interest involving Teneo.

It was Ms. Clinton who suggested that the newly installed chief executive, Eric Braverman, be considered for the job during a nearly two-year search. A friend and a former colleague from McKinsey, Mr. Braverman, 38, had helped the Clintons with philanthropic projects in Haiti after the earthquake there. And his hiring coincided with Ms. Clinton’s appointment as the vice chairwoman of the foundation board, where she will bear significant responsibility for steering her family’s philanthropy, both in the causes it tackles and in the potential political and financial conflicts it must avoid.

Ms. Clinton has also grown worried that the foundation she stood to inherit would collapse without her father, who turns 67 next week. Mr. Clinton, who had quadruple-bypass surgery in 2004 and no longer eats meat or dairy products, talks frequently about his own mortality.

Mr. Catsimatidis said Ms. Clinton “has to learn how to deal with the whole world because she wants to follow in the footsteps of her father and her mother.”

Shifting the Emphasis

Over the years, the foundation has dived into virtually any cause that sparked Mr. Clinton’s interest: childhood obesity in the United States, sustainable farming in South America, mentoring entrepreneurs, saving elephants from poaching, and more. That list will shift soon as Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea build their staffs to focus on issues including economically empowering women and combating infant mortality.

In the coming months, as Mrs. Clinton mulls a 2016 presidential bid, the foundation could also serve as a base for her to home in on issues and to build up a stable of trusted staff members who could form the core of a political campaign.

Mrs. Clinton’s staff at the foundation’s headquarters includes Maura Pally, a veteran aide who advised her 2008 presidential campaign and worked at the State Department, and Madhuri Kommareddi, a former policy aide to President Obama.

Dennis Cheng, Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of protocol at the State Department and a finance director of her presidential campaign, will oversee the endowment drive, which some of the Clintons’ donors already describe as a dry run for 2016.

And Mrs. Clinton’s personal staff of roughly seven people — including Huma Abedin, wife of the New York mayoral candidate Anthony D. Weiner — will soon relocate from a cramped Washington office to the foundation’s headquarters. They will work on organizing Mrs. Clinton’s packed schedule of paid speeches to trade groups and awards ceremonies and assist in the research and writing of Mrs. Clinton’s memoir about her time at the State Department, to be published by Simon & Schuster next summer.
Lydia Polgreen contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

A version of this article appeared in print on August 14, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions.
Title: Can Hillary Clinton Survive Benghazi? - John Hinderacker
Post by: DougMacG on August 23, 2013, 06:05:31 AM
Can Hillary Clinton Survive Benghazi?

Well, sure: she’s a Democrat. That’s the easy, cynical response, and let’s face it–it’s probably right. Still, by any normal standard Benghazi would be considered a career-ending debacle. Four men, including one of her own ambassadors, were murdered on Hillary’s watch, after they had pleaded with her State Department for better security. The cable denying the ambassador’s request for better protection went out over Hillary’s signature. THAT’S JUST A FORMALITY! The Democrats say. SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT! Oh, I see. She was just a figurehead. Small matters like mortal threats to American ambassadors are too minor to come to her attention. Right. Such attention to detail certainly qualifies her to be president!

Then there is the nagging question of what Hillary was doing during the seven hours or so when her ambassador, and those who tried to protect him, were being murdered by Islamic terrorists. Nothing, apparently. Which is just fine with the Democrats. Evidently they are content to have their political “leaders” play purely symbolic roles.

The aftermath is embarrassing, too. Hillary told the father of one of the murdered SEALs that the administration would stop at nothing to bring that lousy video maker to justice. The man must have thought she was a lunatic. Later, according to an eyewitness, Hillary erupted in rage against a Republican Congressman who suggested that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Which, of course, she knew it was shortly after it began. Is it bad to be a cowardly liar? Not if you are a Democratic presidential candidate, evidently.

The aftermath didn’t end with the administration’s initial lies, either. It continues to this day. One might think that a Secretary of State who lost an ambassador on her watch would stop at nothing to make sure that the terrorists who carried out the attack were killed or otherwise punished. (Killed, preferably.) If this is a subject in which Hillary has taken interest, she has shown no sign of it. Her hunt for the terrorists who murdered Ambassador Stevens is on a par with O.J. Simpson’s search for the “real killers.”

Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was a disaster by any rational evaluation. It started with the mis-translated “reset” button and went downhill from there. The current fiasco that stretches from Iraq to Tunisia is, at least in part, the result of the stunningly incompetent Obama/Clinton foreign policy from 2009 to 2013. It is probably true that most Americans don’t pay enough attention to understand how poorly served we have been in foreign affairs by Obama and Clinton. But Benghazi: that is something that just about anyone can grasp. When the State Department needed a leader–the one time in Hillary Clinton’s life when she wasn’t holding on to her husband’s coattails, when she was actually supposed to be in charge of something–there was no leader to be found.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 28, 2013, 08:34:01 AM

"Where is the G*damn f**king flag! I want the G*damn f**king flag up every morning at f**king sunrise."
-From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p.244- Hillary to her staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991.
"F**k off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."
 -From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90-Hillary to her State Trooper body guards after one greeted her with "Good Morning"
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”
-From the book "The First Partner" p.259- Hillary to a Secret Service Agent reluctant to carry her luggage to keep his hands free in case of an incident.
"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!?"
 -From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p.139- Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.
"Where's the miserable c**k sucker!"
-From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p.5- Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.
"You f**king idiot"
-From the book "Crossfire" p.84-Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.
"Put this on the f**king ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!"
-From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p.71-72-- Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.
"Come on Bill, put your d**k away! You can't f**k her here!!"
-From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p.243-Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.
This ill-tempered, violent, loud mouth, hateful and abusive Bitch wants to be your next president and have total control as Commander In Chief of our Military ,
the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain and disrespect throughout her public life.

Surely the people of the United States of America can do better than this "toilet-mouth" woman.
Ed Schriber
Col. USMC (Ret.)
"Semper Fi"
Title: Rodham's 1969 Welleseley Commencement speech
Post by: ccp on August 31, 2013, 08:41:56 AM
In the year of the mud soaked drug sex orgy Woodstock this is what the Hill had to say.  Not one kind word of America.
Whoever the Repubs pick should have some smart people pick this apart and formulate a PRO America plan going forward that America has been in theory the land of freedom, opportunity, pride, confidence, prosperity for all instead of demoralizing themes of limits, unfairness, hollow men of anger and bitterness, and self bountiful ladies of righteous degradation (aka stand by your man).   The Clintons are the face of the anti Vietnam war kids of the 60's who ARE now in power.   The only difference is they don't even believe in a newer America.  They no longer ever believe in America.  They believe in world wide government. 

 CBSNews /
  CBS/   February 11, 2009, 3:56 PM  
Hillary Rodham's 1969 Commencement Address
Wellesley College
1969 Student Commencement Speech
Hillary D. Rodham
May 31, 1969
Ruth M. Adams, ninth president of Wellesley College, introduced Hillary D. Rodham, '69, at the 91st commencement exercises, as follows:

In addition to inviting Senator Brooke to speak to them this morning, the Class of '69 has expressed a desire to speak to them and for them at this morning's commencement. There was no debate so far as I could ascertain as to who their spokesman was to be -- Miss Hillary Rodham. Member of this graduating class, she is a major in political science and a candidate for the degree with honors. In four years she has combined academic ability with active service to the College, her junior year having served as a Vil Junior, and then as a member of Senate and during the past year as President of College Government and presiding officer of College Senate. She is also cheerful, good humored, good company, and a good friend to all of us and it is a great pleasure to present to this audience Miss Hillary Rodham.

Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:

I am very glad that Miss Adams made it clear that what I am speaking for today is all of us -- the 400 of us -- and I find myself in a familiar position, that of reacting, something that our generation has been doing for quite a while now. We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest and I find myself reacting just briefly to some of the things that Senator Brooke said. This has to be brief because I do have a little speech to give. Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities. But it wasn't a discouraging gap and it didn't turn us into cynical, bitter old women at the age of 18. It just inspired us to do something about that gap. What we did is often difficult for some people to understand. They ask us quite often: "Why, if you're dissatisfied, do you stay in a place?" Well, if you didn't care a lot about it you wouldn't stay. It's almost as though my mother used to say, "I'll always love you but there are times when I certainly won't like you." Our love for this place, this particular place, Wellesley College, coupled with our freedom from the burden of an inauthentic reality allowed us to question basic assumptions underlying our education. Before the days of the media orchestrated demonstrations, we had our own gathering over in Founder's parking lot. We protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement. We worked for a pass-fail system. We worked for a say in some of the process of academic decision making. And luckily we were in a place where, when we questioned the meaning of a liberal arts education there were people with enough imagination to respond to that questioning. So we have made progress. We have achieved some of the things that initially saw as lacking in that gap between expectation and reality. Our concerns were not, of course, solely academic as all of us know. We worried about inside Wellesley questions of admissions, the kind of people that should be coming to Wellesley, the process for getting them here. We questioned about what responsibility we should have both for our lives as individuals and for our lives as members of a collective group.

Coupled with our concerns for the Wellesley inside here in the community were our concerns for what happened beyond Hathaway House. We wanted to know what relationship Wellesley was going to have to the outer world. We were lucky in that one of the first things Miss Adams did was to set up a cross-registration with MIT because everyone knows that education just can't have any parochial bounds any more. One of the other things that we did was the Upward Bound program. There are so many other things that we could talk about; so many attempts, at least the way we saw it, to pull ourselves into the world outside. And I think we've succeeded. There will be an Upward Bound program, just for one example, on the campus this summer.

Many of the issues that I've mentioned -- those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world. But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar. It talks about integrity and trust and respect. Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling. We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living. And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue. The questions about those institutions are familiar to all of us. We have seen heralded across the newspapers. Senator Brooke has suggested some of them this morning. But along with using these words -- integrity, trust, and respect -- in regard to institutions and leaders we're perhaps harshest with them in regard to ourselves.

Every protest, every dissent, whether it's an individual academic paper, Founder's parking lot demonstration, is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness. Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime, authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs. There's a very strange conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience. It's such a great adventure. If the experiment in human living doesn't work in this country, in this age, it's not going to work anywhere.

But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves. To be educated to freedom must be evidenced in action, and here again is where we ask ourselves, as we have asked our parents and our teachers, questions about integrity, trust, and respect. Those three words mean different things to all of us. Some of the things they can mean, for instance: Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. If the only tool we have ultimately to use is our lives, so we use it in the way we can by choosing a way to live that will demonstrate the way we feel and the way we know. Integrity -- a man like Paul Santmire. Trust. This is one word that when I asked the class at our rehearsal what it was they wanted me to say for them, everyone came up to me and said "Talk about trust, talk about the lack of trust both for us and the way we feel about others. Talk about the trust bust." What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted? All they can do is keep trying again and again and again. There's that wonderful line in East Coker by Eliot about there's only the trying, again and again and again; to win again what we've lost before.

And then respect. There's that mutuality of respect between people where you don't see people as percentage points. Where you don't manipulate people. Where you're not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. And the word "consequences" of course catapults us into the future. One of the most tragic things that happened yesterday, a beautiful day, was that I was talking to woman who said that she wouldn't want to be me for anything in the world. She wouldn't want to live today and look ahead to what it is she sees because she's afraid. Fear is always with us but we just don't have time for it. Not now.

There are two people that I would like to thank before concluding. That's Ellie Acheson, who is the spearhead for this, and also Nancy Scheibner who wrote this poem which is the last thing that I would like to read:

My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems"
Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all.
The hollow men of anger and bitterness
The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation
All must be left to a bygone age.
And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle
For all those myths and oddments
Which oddly we have acquired
And from which we would become unburdened
To create a newer world
To transform the future into the present.
We have no need of false revolutions
In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds
And hang our wills up on narrow pegs.
It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives.
And once those limits are understood
To understand that limitations no longer exist.
Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free
Not to save the world in a glorious crusade
Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain
But to practice with all the skill of our being
The art of making possible.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. ****
Title: Hillary's swag , , , and endorsement of Al Jazeera
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 07, 2013, 11:11:38 AM  The inference is that she and the others handed their gifts in as required, but somehow I find myself thinking of how she raided the White House's silverware and furniture when Bill and she left , , ,

also, she and McCain endorse Al Jazeera , , ,
Title: At least Carter was honest.
Post by: ccp on September 11, 2013, 10:04:10 AM

Only a Clinton could come out with this: 

****"And while Clinton said the current debate over whether the U.S. should get involved in the Syrian civil war is “good for our democracy,” she also issued strong words against opponents of Obama.

“How do we respond when international rules of the road are violated?” Clinton asked the crowd. “When we let partisanship override citizenship … our standing in the world suffers.”****

This coming from someone who lied about Benghazi to save her own and Obama's political skins just before an election.  Yes Jeb - you are a fool.

-----------Hillary Clinton awarded Liberty Medal, calls for ‘strong response' against Syria

Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News
Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News 16 hours ago  PoliticsHillary Rodham ClintonBarack ObamaChemical weapon

Clinton takes the stage Tuesday night at the National Constitution Center (AP)

Hillary Clinton used her award ceremony at the National Constitution Center on Tuesday night to renew her call for action against the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Clinton was on hand to receive the National Constitution Center’s 25th annual Liberty Medal for her work on the international stage and on behalf of women and children.

There has been more attention paid to Tuesday night’s ceremony because former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush awarded Clinton the medal. Clinton and Bush are both believed to be seriously considering presidential campaigns in 2016.

“We do have some political disagreements,” Bush joked in his introductory remarks. “But there’s one thing we do agree on: the American people — especially those of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.”

Bush currently serves as director of the Constitution Center’s Board of Trustees.

“The president will address the nation shortly about the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against men, women and children,” Clinton told the audience in Philadelphia before President Barack Obama's address to the nation on Tuesday night. “It demands a strong response from the international community led by the United States.”

Clinton and Obama reportedly met at the White House on Monday to discuss the administration’s approach to the issue.

And while Clinton said the current debate over whether the U.S. should get involved in the Syrian civil war is “good for our democracy,” she also issued strong words against opponents of Obama.

“How do we respond when international rules of the road are violated?” Clinton asked the crowd. “When we let partisanship override citizenship … our standing in the world suffers.”

On Monday,  Clinton said that an international effort led by Russia to have Syria hand over its chemical weapons had potential  but also suggested concern that any such move could simply be a delay tactic from Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“If the regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control,” as proposed by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia, that would be an important step,” Clinton said. “But this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction — and Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.”

In addition to Bush’s remarks, Clinton received praise from a set of bipartisan individuals including Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon.-------
Title: Here kitty! Here kitty!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 19, 2013, 08:55:05 AM
Title: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history but
Post by: ccp on September 26, 2013, 09:44:37 AM
that doesn't matter. 

The coronation is well underway.   Big money and celebrities and the mainstream media machine which makes tons off the Clinton's soap operas are hitching their money and investments to this wagon.

The "woman's" angle will be huge.  I doubt the cans will have enough savvy to counter.  And "can" women can compete for the older female vote but the younger women want the taxpayer and employer paid financial support, the pregnancy leave, etc.

The cast of Clinton characters will be back en force.   Being a one percenter is only a problem if you are a Republican.  Otherwise it is ignored.   
Title: Will Clinton run as a 'Clinton Democrat'?
Post by: DougMacG on October 07, 2013, 09:06:26 AM
Interesting piece that questions the positioning strategy of Hillary if she decides to run.  Recall the Bill Clinton ran as centrist Democrat and brags now of the accomplishments that arose out his governing partnership with a Republican congress.  But when Hillary leaned just ever so  slightly to the middle in 2007-2008 she got run over by the left wing of her party.
Title: Tin Foil accusations
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2013, 12:55:24 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2013, 05:35:25 PM

All just coincidence.   :roll: :cry: :x

Like I said.  It is amazing what money and power can do - almost anything.

The media is complicit.

Like Crafty said.  The legal system is not a "justice" system.  It is a "legal" system.  Those with money and influence and with the right know how can run around it.

We just don't see it.   
Title: More connections between Clintons and Muslim Brotherhood!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 19, 2013, 08:11:14 AM
Title: She is only going to worsen the divide
Post by: ccp on October 24, 2013, 08:46:28 AM
Half the country despises her.   She will simply not go away.  She will as did Bill shove herself in front of us every single day.  I already want to leave the country.  The heckler should have yelled back that "you refuse to take responsibility when you were politely asked.  So yes, now I am yelling."
Title: WSJ: Here we go again; the Green Tech fiasco
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2013, 08:35:37 AM
The Clinton Show Returns
Terry McAuliffe's GreenTech fiasco recalls the 1990s' scandals.

Nov. 3, 2013 6:46 p.m. ET

Hillary and Bill Clinton are gearing up for a 2016 presidential run, and Tuesday's election for Virginia Governor is a preview of coming attractions. Terry McAuliffe, Bill and Hill's longtime friend and financial impresario, is leading Republican Ken Cuccinelli despite a federal probe of one of his businesses. For aficionados of the 1990s, the story includes the familiar cast of Clinton characters leveraging connections for political favors.

The focus is GreenTech Automotive, which was supposed to produce electric vehicles. Mr. McAuliffe launched GreenTech in 2009, looking to burnish his business credentials in anticipation of a second Virginia run (he lost a primary in 2009). In its hunt for cash, GreenTech turned to the federal government's EB-5 program, which provides visas to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 to create U.S. jobs.

File-In this July 6, 2012, file photograph, then GreenTech Automotive executive Terry McAuliffe, second from left, jokes with former President Bill Clinton, center and former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour following the unveiling of their new electric MyCar at their manufacturing facility in Horn Lake, Miss. Associated Press

EB-5 was created in 1990, and a federal immigration agency approves "regional centers"—often private companies—to administer the program. This outsourcing has raised national-security alarms, while federal authorities have a growing list of investigations into, or enforcement actions against, U.S. entities that have used the program to defraud foreigners.

GreenTech's use of EB-5 first raised red flags in 2009 as part of its application for Virginia state incentives to build a manufacturing plant. The state development agency refused, with one agency official writing in an email to colleagues that she couldn't view GreenTech's EB-5 program as anything other than "a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications."

Mr. McAuliffe turned to Mississippi, where he landed $5 million in state incentives to build a factory on the promise of creating 350 jobs by 2014 and producing thousands of cars. Mr. McAuliffe's business partner, GreenTech co-founder Charles Wang, got another of his companies, Gulf Coast Funds Management, certified as a regional center for EB-5 visas for Mississippi and Louisiana.

Mr. Wang installed as CEO of Gulf Coast none other than Hillary Clinton's younger brother, Anthony Rodham. Gulf Coast's board includes several Democratic Party notables, such as former Clinton IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson and former Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. While Gulf Coast exists to direct EB-5 investments to startups across its entire "region," to date its website lists one project: GreenTech.

Mr. McAuliffe and Co. then began leveraging political connections to accelerate the visa process. The Washington Post WPO -0.85% has reported that government documents show that Mr. McAuliffe, Mr. Rodham and others at GreenTech and Gulf Coast had a dozen email and telephone conversations with senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security, including director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Alejandro Mayorkas.

You may remember Mr. Mayorkas. In the final days of the Clinton Administration, while working as a U.S. prosecutor in California, he called the Clinton White House to seek an early prison release for convicted cocaine trafficker Carlos Vignali. Mr. Mayorkas called at the request of Vignali's father, a prominent Democratic donor, who had also paid Hugh Rodham (Mrs. Clinton's other brother) $200,000 to lobby for the commutation. Mr. Clinton granted clemency on his last day in office.

Mr. McAuliffe met personally with Mr. Mayorkas, reached out directly to (now former) Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and contacted Mrs. Napolitano's chief of staff Noah Kroloff, according to testimony and publicly released documents and emails. He was clearly heard. DHS Assistant Secretary Doug Smith sent a February 2013 email to Mr. Kroloff: "Any way you can kick [Mr. Mayorkas] into gear? If this doesn't get resolved by [close of business] today, the [GreenTech] plant will have to shut down and lay off 100 people on Monday."

It isn't clear what DHS did on GreenTech's behalf, but a GreenTech prospectus in March said the company had received about $46 million from EB-5 investors. The Associated Press reported in July that the DHS inspector general has launched a preliminary investigation into whether Mr. Mayorkas improperly helped GreenTech. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley says he has documents showing Mr. Mayorkas bypassed normal security checks to accelerate visa approvals. Several DHS officials have requested whistleblower status to report that DHS officials gave preferential visa treatment to companies like Mr. McAuliffe's.

The Washington Post reported in August that one Chinese national who applied for a visa through Gulf Coast is an executive at Huawei Technologies, the telecom company that the HouseIntelligence Committee says poses a threat to U.S. security. The Post also reported that the SEC has subpoenaed GreenTech and Gulf Coast documents as part of a separate investigation into solicitation of foreign investors. Meanwhile, GreenTech's Mississippi site sits largely vacant, with a mere 80 employees and nary a car produced.

DHS, GreenTech and Gulf Coast officials have all publicly denied any wrongdoing. President Obama has nominated Mr. Mayorkas for the number two post at DHS, and at his July confirmation hearing he said he did not give special treatment to GreenTech. Mr. McAuliffe, who resigned from GreenTech last December (though he remains the largest investor), wrote in the Washington Post in August that investigators had not contacted him.

All of which will sound familiar to anyone old enough to recall the ethical follies of 1990s: the insider political deals, the dubious pardons, the stonewalling, and the denials that proved to be false after the election. If Mr. McAuliffe wins on Tuesday, the Clinton Show will officially be back in town.
Title: Hillarya fired for lies and unethical behavior
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2013, 10:37:55 AM
Title: Morris: Clinton turns on Obama
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2013, 02:16:26 PM
second post of day

Clinton Turns On Obama
Published on Dick on November 13, 2013

Commentators have missed the significance of President Clinton's public expression of his "personal opinion" that Obama should "honor his commitment" to let people keep their health insurance plans if they like them.
By intervening in the chaos surrounding the ObamaCare launch, President Clinton has staked out ground for his wife in her efforts to position herself for the 2016 contest.
While the former president's comments were laced with reassurances that he approved of ObamaCare and that he felt it was the right direction for the nation to take, his outspoken demand that Obama reverse the cancellations is a bold step into the waters in advance of a 2016 Hillary candidacy.
That he was speaking for Hillary goes without saying.  By having her husband articulate her views without saying so, she preserves deniability while putting distance between herself and ObamaCare, an important step for the former sponsor of the similar HillaryCare package of 1993.
The cancellations in health care policies looms as the single biggest threat to the Obama presidency, undermining his signature credential even as a paltry 50,000 American go to federal -- and 40,000 to state -- exchanges to sign up.  By wading into this controversy, the former president and his wife stake out important ground and bring pressure on the president.
Hillary, in effect, separates herself from the ObamaCare catastrophe while still earning points on the left for supporting the program.
Using Bill to criticize Obama is a bit like having a vice presidential candidate to do so.  But having a husband who could be free-lancing (but isn't) preserves her ability to distance herself from the accusations and suggestions.
Good politics.
Title: Is Hillary who suppored ObamaCare all the way insulated from the lies?
Post by: DougMacG on November 17, 2013, 07:26:04 AM
Title: WSJ: New look at the 90s
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2013, 03:48:21 AM
In Clinton, New Look at '90s
Both Sides Seek Salient Lessons in Her Tenure as First Lady; 'Mother of Obamacare'?
By Peter Nicholas
Updated Nov. 17, 2013 7:42 p.m. ET

The presidential election is three years out and Hillary Clinton hasn't even said she is running, but her political future has already touched off a re-examination of a central part of her past: the 1990s.

Republican researchers are mining archives from the Bill Clinton era in search of material that could be used to hobble her candidacy. In particular, they are laying the groundwork to capitalize on Mrs. Clinton's efforts as chairman of a task force to overhaul the health-care system in 1993-94, casting what they call "HillaryCare" as a forerunner of the Affordable Care Act that, at this point, is generally unpopular.

"She could be the mother of Obamacare," said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster.

Mrs. Clinton, in speeches she has been giving since leaving the State Department, has signaled she would use the 1990s as a selling point if she jumps in the race, making the case that, as first lady, she was part of an era that found solutions to the same sorts of political difficulties that bedevil present-day Washington.

Should Mrs. Clinton run, GOP campaign strategists also are zeroing in on the financial dealings of her husband's foundation and on the terrorist attack at a diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans last year, while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. But a thorough re-litigation of the 1990s could be on the horizon.

Both sides are using the same episodes from the decade to argue to their advantage. Take the government shutdown in 1995-'96, which has special resonance in light of the 16-day shutdown that played out last month.

In recent speeches, Mrs. Clinton has mentioned the earlier shutdown to illustrate how the Clinton White House dealt with the type of gridlock that now engulfs Washington.

Speaking at Colgate University last month, she said that during the 1990s shutdown, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich "would spend all day saying terrible things about Bill on every TV station he could get on—occasionally about me as well—and then he would come to the White House at 9 o'clock at night" to strike a deal.

Implicit in the argument: She wouldn't let partisan differences harden to the point where the two sides stop talking.

Republican strategists, who expect Mrs. Clinton to run and believe she would be a heavy favorite to win the Democratic nomination, said they would portray the 1990s shutdown as a turbulent part of the Bill Clinton era, seeking to remind voters that Mrs. Clinton was in the White House during a time of political dysfunction that echoes the present day.

"People remember all this crazy stuff that was happening in the 1990s, like the government shutdown, and they say, 'Who needs that again?' " said a Republican strategist who is preparing for a possible Clinton bid.

Researchers at the Republican National Committee and conservative groups are sifting through old Clinton administration records to see if there is anything that takes on new relevance in view of her service in the Obama administration. They have fresh records to mine. The watchdog group Judicial Watch, through litigation, recently won the release of about 57,000 pages of health-care records from the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.

In Mrs. Clinton's circle, associates fully expect Republicans to aggressively attack her on all fronts. One person close to her said: "I'm losing track—so far it's been the Golden Girls, Benghazi, the 1990s."

If she does run, Mrs. Clinton could rebut attacks by asserting that as secretary of state she had little responsibility for domestic policy and even less to do with the health-law rollout that has caused such difficulties for the president. The plan she proposed in the early 1990s would have capped premiums in order to hold down costs and would have created a system under which insurers would be required to bid for regional business.

In her 2008 presidential bid, her unsuccessful 1990s health revamp didn't loom large as an issue because she was rolling out a new proposal that, like the Affordable Care Act, included a mandate under which individuals would have to buy insurance.

In her Colgate speech, she trumpeted the budget surpluses that marked her husband's last years in office. "We were on a path to literally paying off our debt—not just our deficit—at the end of my husband's second term," she said. She went on to say that after Mr. Clinton left office the surpluses disappeared as a result of "two wars and a very large tax cut," among other reasons.

Republicans argue the economic gains under Bill Clinton didn't prove durable and that the middle class is struggling five years into the Obama presidency.
Title: Bill Maher on the Hillbillary Clintons
Post by: DougMacG on November 19, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
If you're a Democrat...

the Clintons are a pre-existing condition.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on November 19, 2013, 04:48:26 PM
Dick Morris called Clinton's comment a "brilliant political" move.   
I am not so sure.  Someone else pointed out that such a public criticism is walking a tight rope for the Clintons.
Hopefully Bill will do for Hillary in '16 what his big fat mouth did for her in '08. 
Remember this?  The MSM seems to ignore history but it precisely this that cost Hillary the primary against the ONE:
Title: Morris: What Billary are up to
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 06, 2013, 09:57:48 AM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on December 26, 2013, 08:50:49 AM
Of course Sam who I assume is a die hard Jewish Democrat was posting his disgust of the bashing of Sarah Palin by the Democrat machine. (as a Jew I am more revolted that non Jews who my fellow people who have been so successful in this country still as Savage points out wrap themselves in the flag of discrimination)

 This is what '16 is going to be all about:  women vs. men.   And of course the single women vote is going to be their new core base.  In the health field there are many young single mothers.  And most are getting some assistance in some way.  Indeed some choose not to marry because they have realized they can more from the taxpayer that way.
I don't know how the Republicans can compete.  It is interesting that recent polls show even men who voted for Obama are beginning to realize the errors of Obama and his progressivism.  Not true of women.  Particularly the young single mother kind.

And this fact will drive the Crats to even more push the gender divide!  The gender divisiveness will make racial divisiveness seem like small potatoes I have a feeling:

The History of Hillary-Bashing

By Sam Kleiner 5 hours ago The Daily Beast

The History of Hillary-Bashing
While Hillary Clinton has made clear that she won’t decide whether she wants to pursue the presidency in 2016 until next year, Republicans have decided they already are going to make her a top target. Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee Chairman, has promised this month to go after the “rough stuff” about Clinton in an ad campaign that will be “very aggressive.” The Republicans are promising a shotgun approach; just shoot out things like the “a botched health care roll out in the '90s and Benghazi,” and hope something hits.

This isn’t the first time that Republicans have tried to nasty attacks against Hillary. That tradition stretches back to 1992, when Republicans decided to go after her with a series of sexist attacks that continued into her husband’s administration. As Republicans start to open up attacks against Hillary once again, it’s worth remembering the sexist overtones in the earliest Republican attacks on Hillary, and how these attacks can backfire on Republicans.

“Hillary-bashing” became a central theme in the Republican campaign in 1992. “No one can convince me that the American people are so blind that they would replace Barbara Bush with Hillary Clinton," Pat Roberston told the Republican convention. This was no ordinary First Lady, she was, as Patrick Buchanan said, a “lawyer-spouse” who “has compared marriage as an institution to slavery.” While Hillary had been the stable breadwinner in years when Bill tried to get his political career to take off, Republicans were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a marriage in which a woman could hold a successful career, especially one that may be on par with that of her husband. Even Barbara Bush, who first resisted the idea of going after Hillary, eventually came around to seeing her as “quite different” and a fair target. 

In that election cycle, Republicans were attracted to portraying Hillary’s career as the manifestation of something maniacal about her intentions. In 1992, the right-wing American Spectator characterized Hillary as the “Lady MacBeth of Arkansas.”

The deep-seated antipathy to Hillary in that campaign was part of the right’s inability to accept women in the workplace. The idea of a professional woman disturbed Republicans. The year before, the party had gone after Anita Hill for speaking out about workplace sexual harassment from her boss, Clarence Thomas. “Are you a scorned woman?" asked Republican Senator Howell Heflin, in a line that became synonymous with apparent Republican discomfort with the role of women in the workplace. Watching the all-male Senate panel grill Anita Hill encouraged women across the country to run for political office. Amongst them was a state legislator, Patty Murray of Washington, who was told that she couldn’t succeed in politics as a “mom in tennis shoes,” but she used that as her campaign slogan.

Despite Republican opposition, women gained made huge strides in politics that year. President Bush said, “This is supposed to be the year of the women in the Senate. Let's see how they do. I hope a lot of them lose." His wish was unfulfilled. The vicious Republican attacks on Hillary, and the impression that the Republican Party was opposed to women’s rights, alienated women voters and helped to motivate women to turn out to the polls for Democrats. The record level of women who came out to vote in 1992 not only elected Bill Clinton but turned out in record numbers “helping to elect 24 new women to the House and five to the Senate, the largest increase in history.” That election went down in history as “the year of the woman.” Twenty years later, that “mom in tennis shoes,” Senator Patty Murray, helped to usher in another “year of the woman” when she helped to elect five new Democratic women in the Senate.

Title: Egyptian AG charges Hillary with conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2013, 09:09:43 AM[376601275819342]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]
Title: Hillary lied and troops died
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 08, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
Title: Hillary's sex scandals
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2014, 11:32:29 AM
Reliability of this site and piece are unknown.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on January 12, 2014, 03:56:10 PM
As for the sex - means nothing.  It is only sex. :-P

Hacking and erasing years of emails and other documents.  Sounds familiar.

They can also determine if copies were made.  They could also plant spyware into computer and keep tabs.  Communicate with the printer or phones.

If copies are made they will get into the house without leaving a trace or bribe someone else to do so or set up a contractor.  Oh you need an electrician.  We will have our coincidently leave a flier on you door - 10% discount. 

Maybe you need phone or cable service.  No sweat.

I can go on.  Think it don't happen?  Think it is only the government.  Think people who were/are in government don't work with organized crime to do this?

Yes.  Snowden is right ( I am not referring to whether he is a traitor or not - different issue).  Only the naïve think otherwise.

And I am not referring to people on this board.  Just too many naïve people in this world.

Title: The Hill: Hillary's hit list
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2014, 08:57:11 AM
A must-read for anyone obsessing on the upcoming Hillary candidacy.  When you look back at the way the rats fled the ship last time - at the first sign of a credible alternative, the inevitable looks far less inevitable.
Title: Goldberg
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2014, 06:43:35 AM
The Goldberg File
By Jonah Goldberg
January 17, 2014

Dear Reader (Including those of you who have merely stumbled onto this "news"letter via the filthy Internet rather than receiving it via the space-age pneumatic technology it was intended for),

Say you work for a company that depends on sales ("Um, are there other kinds of businesses?" — The Couch).

Imagine you have a saleswoman who everyone says is the best — THE BEST!! (ideally said in a Kenny Banya voice). Whenever you point out that her sales numbers stink, everyone calls you "sexist" or insists that you just "don't get it."

You respond, "What has she done?"

The universal answer is, "She clocked more miles on sales calls than anybody in company history! She's driven a million miles! One. Million. Miles!"

You ask: "Yeah, but has she, you know, sold anything?"

"Sexist! You don't get it!"

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. When you ask her diehard supporters what she did as secretary of state they start with, "She travelled a million miles! More than any secretary of state."

Put aside the fact that the "more than any secretary of state" part isn't actually true — Condi Rice flew more. When you ask, "Okay, what did she get for it?" you get a blank stare or you get some stuff about championing women's rights. Two people have told me she did good work in Myanmar, but I've never really gotten to the bottom of that. I suppose I could look it up, but at the end of the day we're still talking about Myanmar, which is not the locus of America's most pressing international problems. ("That's right, because Hillary prevented the Myanmarese hegemony," someone at MSNBC just shrieked. "She stopped it cold.") While the Wikipedia page on her tenure doesn't even mention Myanmar, it does mention her championing of better cook stoves in the Third World. That's good. And so is improving the plight of women in various countries where their status ranges between "Slightly More Important than the Village Mule" to "So Incredibly Delicate We Must Keep Them Covered with Burlap Sacks All Day Long Even Though It's Like 115 Degrees in the Shade Today."

But when I take out my handy pocket realpolitik calculator, I just can't make all that add up to much. Particularly when you compare it with our worsening problems in the Middle East, Asia (minus Myanmar!), Europe, Russia, and South America. Those problems are by no means all her fault (nor are they all Obama's fault). But Clinton was the second most important foreign-policy official. If you were, say, the assistant coach of the 1999 Cleveland Browns or the deputy spokesman for Baghdad Bob during the lead-up to the Iraq War, you might — just might — want to highlight other things on your résumé. So it is with Clinton. As our chief diplomat, she presided over a long slide into foreign-policy suckitude. On her watch, America's standing got worse every place it matters (except Myanmar!), despite all of those sales calls.

What Difference It Makes

And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake.

The bureaucracy did it!

Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy?

Shut up, they explain.

Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It's also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration?

The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren't reporters camped outside Clinton's home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn't close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?

Still, it is obvious that this is bad news for Hillary Clinton. No, she won't be indicted. No, it won't sink her candidacy (if she runs). Yes, it's true: There aren't many Americans who would have otherwise voted for Hillary were it not for Benghazi. But when you have pretty much no real accomplishments to put on the pro side of the scale, and you have a U.S. ambassador murdered in an attack your department could have prevented (and which you subsequently lied about) on the con side of the scale, the scale simply won't balance in your favor. Nor should it.

Another Word about Hillary

I've been saying for a while, if by a while you mean two decades, that Hillary Clinton has never lived up to the hype. She wasn't an effective senator, she was effective at managing her image as a senator. She wasn't an effective manager; HillaryCare was a paper behemoth that never even came up for a vote, but nonetheless helped her party lose control of the U.S. Congress. She isn't a great politician; she's the wife of one. She's not even charismatic. As I wrote last May in USA Today:

Clinton has been in the news for two decades. And even with Obama's glory in full fade, it's worth noting he's still a vastly more compelling personality. Watch January's (journalistically vapid) 60 Minutes interview with both Clinton and Obama. The president comes across as engaged and energetic. Clinton seems like the person who comes up to tell you "there's no eating in the library."

The fascination, the excitement, the thrill of Hillary Clinton is like a psychological potluck dinner for liberal Democrats and the Washington press corps: They bring their own. All she provides is the venue.

And when I hear people talk about how amazing or unstoppable or charismatic she is I feel like Will Ferrell in Zoolander, shouting "Does no one else see this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
Title: What did Hillary now, and when did she know it?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 20, 2014, 08:28:26 AM
Pasting this from the Benghazi thread as well:
Title: The Atlantic: Can Anyone Stop Hillary? Absolutely
Post by: DougMacG on January 23, 2014, 11:27:38 AM
The Atlantic:  Can Anyone Stop Hillary? Absolutely
She hasn't done much to help her cause lately.
Politics has a way of surprising us.
Title: Another Clinton election theme now emerging
Post by: ccp on January 26, 2014, 05:12:30 PM
Besides the babe factor I just started hearing about this so called "split" in the Democrat party between, guess what, and get this, the "moderate" Clinton camp and the "progressive" Obama camp.   The coronation continues:
Title: Not since 1996
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2014, 01:19:29 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on January 27, 2014, 03:54:44 PM
Hillary' biggest regret are the deaths in Benghazi?

What a stinking slime bucket she is.  After lying before an election and trying to hide behind a cover-up NOW she expresses her regrets.

And of course her slime-ball supporters will be defending her from now on saying, " what more do you want?"  "She expresses her regrets".  "She is taking responsibility".

This is not taking responsibility!  If there is a God she should not get away with this. :x

Doesn't American deserve better than this?  Selfish lying scum bucket. 

Not another 8 years of this please. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2014, 04:58:35 PM

History trivia:  15 years ago today Hillary said that Spermgate was a vast right wing conspiracy against her husband.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on January 28, 2014, 05:50:57 AM
History trivia:  15 years ago today Hillary said that Spermgate was a vast right wing conspiracy against her husband.

Yes, how is that for being able to analyze the available intelligence, draw the right conclusion and tell the American people the truth, no matter what it is.  One of the comforts people have with her is that Bill Clinton will be right there with her when the 3am call comes in.  Will he?  Liberal mainstream media conspiracists now admitting knew but didn't report on Bill Clinton's affairs during Hillary's previous, ill-fated run:   :-o

BTW, she already had the 3am phone call - Benghazi - and failed the test.  The right answer was that she hounded and drove the President for more security prior to the attack and for more assets to help during the attack and she didn't do it.  She didn't do anything, even make a return phone call (as far as we know).  If she did and has held back on telling us to protect the President, that would begin the separation she needs from this President.  She also needs to prove she has consistently opposed government botched healthcare as well.  Good luck with that.

Rand Paul called out Bill Clinton as a sexual predator on Meet the Press:  (Funny they didn't edit that out.) Bill Clinton could use his stock lowered a notch too.  Not exactly a role model.

I have previously predicted: 
a) She won't run. 
b) If she runs, she won't be the nominee.
c) If she is the nominee, she won't win.
d) When this proves true, it will appear so obvious in that I won't be able to brag about this prediction.

Try to imagine - packed crowds coming out in Iowa and New Hampshire, shrieking like 1963 Beattles fans, exciting for hope and change, like Hyde Park 2008, with thrills running up and down their legs - over a Hillary Rodham Clinton candidacy.  I don't see it.
Title: Juanita Broaddrick and related matters
Post by: DougMacG on January 28, 2014, 10:16:19 AM
From Rand Paul thread
Yesterday RP brought up Spermgate in the context of an interview about Hillary.  Error in my opinion.

As far as most people are concerned the issue has been presented to the American people and settled and bringing it up now is going to play poorly.

When hit with the "Rep War on Women" meme, a fair rejoinder could certainly include reference to Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick (wasn't she the one Bill groped against her will in the WH when she came to ask for a job?  on the very day that her husband, also a loyal Clintonite, was committing suicide?  or something like that?) but in this moment RP displayed a serious tin ear on an issue that is usually a seriously weak link politically for Reps.

No, Kathleen Willey was the one groped.  Juanita Broaddrick was the one raped and told: " 'You better get some ice for that.' And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door," she recalled.,, if you are inclined to believe a Democrat volunteer victim of serial predator.  Paula Jones was the one summoned, intimidated, sexually harassed in the most vulgar way, and then tossed out and called white trash by his surrogates.  

Hillary was the enabler - all the way through.  Interview of Juanita Broaddrick in which she discloses (alleges) having been threatened by Hillary Clinton 2 weeks after (alleged) rape:  (below).  A''champions of women's rights' - right.

Rand Paul was bold and right, in my view, to bring the dark side of the Clinton Presidency back to public awareness.  As suggested by Crafty, there is plenty more to the story.  I doubt if they want to go there.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2014, 10:31:51 AM
Thanks bringing that here and for doing the work on it.  We may have need to mention this from time to time between now and 2016.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on January 28, 2014, 06:11:30 PM
"I have previously predicted:  
a) She won't run.  
b) If she runs, she won't be the nominee.
c) If she is the nominee, she won't win.
d) When this proves true, it will appear so obvious in that I won't be able to brag about this prediction."


I will personally pay for an ad in the WSJ the moment this comes true giving you credit for knowing it before anyone else.  The Dog Brothers' version of Nostradamus! :-D

I am rooting for you.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2014, 07:50:56 PM
Title: Re: Not since 1996
Post by: DougMacG on January 30, 2014, 07:13:18 AM

Remember how shocked people were that Pres. George H.W. Bush had not seen a grocery scanner in 1992?

Prior to Chappaqua house, the Clintons had barely owned a house, much less a car.  Like most, typical middle American couples, they lived in government mansions and were driven by government drivers.  It was state troopers who took Bill Clinton to his Gennifer Flowers affair.

Title: Besides the frequent flyer miles , , ,
Post by: DougMacG on January 30, 2014, 08:06:57 AM
On the R side, we keep looking for the right combination of experience.  Hillary appears to have that.  She was a US Senator.  Has foreign policy experience.  Worked in the executive branch and was involved in it with her husband.  

Recently mentioned was her bald faced lying to the American people as their First Lady, excusing the predator while blaming the opposition.  Clever at the moment and proven wrong.  For another post, her dismal record as a US Senator.  Suffice it to say, they collapsed the US economy.  As Secretary of State, we should recall how it began and how it transpired.

It was a reach out to a hated rival that he chose Hillary Clinton and from then on they were such great friends, if you believe that.  Pres. Obama chose Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, then he diminished that job by appointing Special Envoys to the key trouble spots in the world,  George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East 'peace', and Richard Holbrooke as special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan.  President Obama appointed Rashad Hussain, an Indian-American Muslim, as the United States special envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.  

In other words, Hillary held the title but the White House wanted to work through others in what they considered key areas.  So Hillary traveled and traveled and traveled - to everywhere else.  What did she accomplish?

Radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Politico's Maggie Haberman, who had just written a major fluff piece on Hillary Clinton in Oct 2013, to name her accomplishments as Secretary of State:  

"There is not a giant list that I think people can point to".

"The biggest achievements was, and you’ve seen this pointed to a lot, was the amount of travel time she logged...", the communications professional struggled to go any further:

Politico’s Maggie Haberman Struggles To List Any Accomplishments At State By Hillary Clinton
Monday, October 28, 2013  

HH: Joined now by Maggie Haberman of, who had a huge story this morning on Hillary Clinton’s potential 2016 run. Maggie, welcome, it’s good to have you on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

MH: Thanks for having me.

HH: Did the reaction to your column flow in today and raise questions about whether or not she’s actually running? Or does everyone assume she’s running?

MH: I’ve heard a mixture of reactions. I think that most people think the preponderance of evidence is that she is running. I had actually been among those who had thought she wasn’t running, and I no longer think that. It’s hard to think it after some of the speeches she’s given recently. I think most people think that there is a chance that she won’t run, that those would be for, you know, mostly personal reasons, or the unforeseen. But that chance seems pretty small at the moment.

HH: Now this is a process story that turns primarily on the argument that the biggest complaint about Clinton in 2008, and I’m quoting now, was that she ran a campaign of entitlement, showing feistiness and emotion only after Obama had surged when it was already too late. Is that what you consider, or what your sources consider to be her biggest potential problem this time around? Or is it her record as secretary of State?

MH: Well, I think that there are two different issues. And I certainly think that her approach to a campaign will be very significant in terms of how she handles it. I think that her record as secretary of State is obviously her most recent, and it is one of the pieces of her curriculum vitae that have been the least looked at, certainly in terms of repeated, in terms of the crux of a campaign and the crucible of a campaign. And I think that it’s relevant. I think that it’s going to come up a lot. I think that people around her are certainly prepared for that, or at least prepared for it to be an issue. How they handle it remains to be seen.

HH: What is her biggest achievement as secretary of State?

MH: I think that the folks around her believe that among the biggest achievements was, and you’ve seen this pointed to a lot, was the amount of travel time she logged. They felt very good about the Chinese dissident, and how the disposition of that case went in 2012. I think that what they, and what most people are prepared for is a lot of questions about the aftermath of Benghazi, and I think there was a 60 Minutes piece about that, that went out yesterday. I think there’s going to be a lot more of that. I think that this is where the fact that most people believe she is running, but she has not set up a team of any kind in any meaningful way, potentially becomes problematic, because if her folks believe that they have something to say in response to that and they’re not, they’re sort of letting time slip away from them.

HH: But pause for a moment with me on the achievement side.

MH: Sure.

HH: Articulate further. What is it that people say is her achievement? That she logged a lot of miles? What, is she running for George Clooney’s role in Up In The Air?

MH: (laughing) That has been certainly one of the focuses that her folks have talked about. They’ve also talked about how she ran a functional effort at State. Look, I think that when you hear from her world about what her accomplishments were, I think that they genuinely believe that she had made progress in terms of how America was perceived. People can agree or disagree with that. I think that that is obviously been coming into question now, and this is again something I think she’s going to have to talk about more. She’s clearly aware of that, but she’s not saying much about it so far, on the NSA issue. It’s very, very difficult for a former Obama administration official to run a sort of smoke and mirrors campaign on foreign policy. She’s going to have a very hard time doing that.

HH: Well, I know all the critiques, because I’m a conservative talk show host. So I know what all the vulnerabilities are.

MH: Right.

HH: I’m just curious as to what they think her strengths are, other than, you know, frequent flyer miles.

MH: Look, they think that she was an effective diplomat. They think that she was good at helping America’s image globally. They have a couple of cases like the case of the Chinese dissident where they think that State played a very effective role. She was among those who was pressing for more action in Syria of a restricted type earlier on than what you saw the Obama administration ultimately do this year. But you know, look, she was not, she certainly was not part of the team that, say, was dealing with Israel. She was not integral in that way, and so I think for some of the issues that are the hottest right now, globally, she was not a key factor in them.\

HH: So a Chinese dissident? That’s it?

MH: Well, I think we will see what they issue as her biggest strength as secretary of State. That has not been a case they’ve been emphasizing so far. You’ve, I’m sure, read the New York Magazine piece, like everybody else, where they talked about again, her time as secretary of State which was largely mechanical, at least in the focus of that piece, and how they thought she had run an effective effort. Everything with Hillary Clinton gets looked at through the prism of how she manages whatever team she’s running, and that’s been where a lot of the focus has been.

HH: Well, it’s very interesting to me, though, as you report early on, they are going to try, Team Clinton is going to try and give you the talking points, which they hope then enter into the bloodstream, and into the circulatory system of Washington, D.C. that is Politico, and then out through the rest of the country. And what I’m hearing you say is they’ve got a Chinese dissident.

MH: No, I think, but I think that when you’ve asked me off the top of my head what are some of the things that her folks have pointed to over the last two years, that has certainly been one of the cases.

HH: Anything else, Maggie?

MH: Yes, there are others, but I’m just not coming up with them at the moment, but, and I’m not trying to avoid the question.

HH: Oh, I know you’re not. I just don’t think there’s anything there. I think, actually, her biggest problem is that there is no there there. She occupied the State Department, and there’s nothing to show for it. I guess there’s this Chinese dissident, but I’m, that’s not, that’s not a name that’s tripping off of my tongue right now. Do you know his name?

MH: I think that, no, at the moment, I actually cannot think of his name. I think that they’re, I think this is going to be an ongoing problem for her. I think that showing sort of a body of work at State is going to be something that she’s going to be pressed to do increasingly, and I think that running sort of a shadow campaign through paid speeches and free speeches over the course of the next year, I think is going to not cut it eventually, not just for conservative critics, but I think on the left. I think she’s going to have a problem.

HH: But doesn’t this sort of underscore the major problem? Here I am, a conservative critic, and I know the critique. And you’re a mainstream reporter, and as far as I know, you have no ideology. You’re one of the people at Politico that I don’t put on the left or the right, you’re just down the middle.

MH: Yeah.

HH: And neither of us can come up with any claim that she has to having succeeded at anything, and they are not able, they didn’t spin you, because they’ve got nothing to spin you with. It’s like the washing machine’s broke.

MH: Well, we’ll see. I mean, I think we need to see what they ultimately come up, to be fair. I think that since she’s not yet running, I think looking at how they present her and present what she did there is an open question.

HH: They’ll come up with something. What I’m getting at is, how long have you been with Politico, five years?

MH: Four years, three and a half years.

HH: Okay, so almost her entire tenure at State, and I’ve been on the air since 2000. And I can’t think of anything, and I’m giving you the floor. If you can come up with anything for her case, lay it out there. Just from the top of mine, it should be front shelf, right?

MH: It certainly is not, there is not a giant list that I think people can point to.

HH: There is no list.

MH: There are a couple, and I think there’s a couple of reasons for that like I said. With the major issue of dealing with Israel, she was not front and center. And she certainly received criticism early on in terms of how the U.S. dealt with Russia. I think these are all going to be issues that she is going to have to address, and I suspect she is going to get asked about them repeatedly, and by many, many outlets.

HH: I mean, it’s just a big, we’re done, but go around the bullpen at Politico and ask them what did she do, and it’s going to be a giant whiteboard, and there’s not going to be anything on it, Maggie.

MH: I like the invocation of whiteboard, though.

HH: It is a whiteboard. Maggie Haberman, great piece today, great process piece, but boy, she’s got problems if after writing it, you don’t have the list at the tip of the tongue. The Clintonistas had better come up with a list, because there’s nothing on it. Really, nothing.
Title: Hillary Clinton: Dishonesty and Opportunism, has it ever been any other way?
Post by: DougMacG on February 10, 2014, 09:15:43 AM
Like the Nixon tapes, the “Hillary Papers” — actually the papers of Hillary’s close friend and confidant, the late Diane Blair — tend mainly to confirm what we thought we already knew about a highly public figure who has been in the limelight for decades.

Take, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s reaction to the Lewinsky scandal. Blair wrote this after listening to the First Lady on the subject:

    [Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it. But, she does say this to put his actions in context. Ever since he took office they’ve been going thru personal tragedy ([the death of] Vince [Foster], her dad, his mom) and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them.

In other words, Clinton’s political adversaries — that vast right-wing conspiracy — are partly to blame for his sexual indiscretions. Is anyone surprised that this was her take?

Or consider her stance on “single payer” health insurance. Blair recounts:

    At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.

Yet, as the Washington Free Beacon points out, in an interview with the New York Times when she ran for president in 2008, Clinton said:

    You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.

Again, is anyone surprised at the dishonesty and opportunism? This, after all, is the same person Robert Gates heard say she opposed the 2007 Iraq surge because she couldn’t let Barack Obama get to her left on the issue. (Note the double cynicism here: if the surge had failed, Clinton wouldn’t have said that her opposition was other than merits-based, and it’s not clear that the statement to the contrary that Gates heard her make was honest).

There’s much more of interest in the Hillary Papers, but the pre-existing record is more damning, as we expect to have many occasions to point out.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on February 10, 2014, 04:32:41 PM
Doug I hear you.


The question is do enough people care?  If they did then why is Hillary ahead in polls.  Yes I know it way early but still..... Someone with her record of lying should be in the cellar.  Not in the penthouse.

I heard Rush for ten minutes today.  He more or less has stopped banging his head against the wall asking how such a person as Hillary is not in the garbage can like Nixon.
He just realized none of this seems to matter.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on February 10, 2014, 09:13:36 PM
Doug I hear you.
The question is do enough people care?  If they did then why is Hillary ahead in polls.  Yes I know it way early but still..... Someone with her record of lying should be in the cellar.  Not in the penthouse.
I heard Rush for ten minutes today.  He more or less has stopped banging his head against the wall asking how such a person as Hillary is not in the garbage can like Nixon.
He just realized none of this seems to matter.

Of course you are right at this moment.  I am perhaps the only person who holds Hillary and Barack accountable for the economic fall of 2007-2008.  Maybe only me and about two others know President Bill Clinton accomplished NOTHING economically before Newt took congress and he  signed on with their Republican agenda, dumping Hillary and HillaryCare.  Still, what can they say they accomplished when they took control of congress and the country went to hell?  What can they say they accomplished when they took control of foreign policy and the world went to hell?  There isn't going to be Hyde Park 2008 level excitement for this known, dismal commodity.  I guarantee you, she would rather win in 2016 than be a frontrunner now.  I highly doubt she can be both.  Her frontrunner status does not match her lack of curb appeal.  She has a good resume - as to where she has been, not what she has accomplished.  She has top notch name recognition.  Yet she is smart enough to know Hillary fatigue is setting in - even when she is totally silent!

[youtube][/youtube]  'I am Sick and Tired'  'What Difference Does it Make'.   Barack eats her debate lunch.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on February 11, 2014, 06:12:06 AM
"She has a good resume - as to where she has been, not what she has accomplished."

Ah, but the Hillary makeover.  The incessant smiling. (She reminds me of the Joker) The reports of her sense of humor!   The reports of her being  so warm and cuddly! The reports she is so polite and friendly and kind!

I don't know if you saw Joe Schmo Scarborough even touting how nice she was to him.  He was "surprised".  They were such mortal political enemies and yet when they met she was so kind.   

I can't believe my ears.

Like I said with people in our party like this we have no chance.

OTOH Colin Powell pointed out the Republicans "need" him more than the Democrats after, again, highlighting how bigoted an "element" in the party is.   Small Colon I have news for you.  The Republican party not only doesn't need you we don't want you if this is what you stand for.  And BTW why do you still call yourself a Republican?  Are you fishing for some sort of deal?

But I digress...

Back to Hillary.  She is despised by half the country.  Yet she still seems to be able to get over 50% adoration.  I just don't understand how people can be so conned so often.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on February 11, 2014, 08:23:00 AM
ccp,  I'm glad you're on this and I feel your pain. 

We could re-name this thread Clinton-fatigue right now.  That is what will bring them down, not their long, sordid, and often criminal history, true as that is.  A Hillary Presidency isn't exciting to anyone now and she won't be more exciting later when she's front and center on the news every hour.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 11, 2014, 10:46:38 AM
She will be exciting in an affirmative action way; just as Baraq was despite his complete lack of preparation and, given his friends and allies, apparent inability to qualify for security clearance.
Title: Like a bad nightmare that will not end
Post by: ccp on February 11, 2014, 03:19:20 PM
"We could re-name this thread Clinton-fatigue right now.  That is what will bring them down, not their long, sordid, and often criminal history, true as that is.  A Hillary Presidency isn't exciting to anyone now and she won't be more exciting later when she's front and center on the news every hour."

Doug, your optimism is well received by me -  :-D; 

I guess it is my problem but I won't sleep well until they are brought down once and for all.  Not until they leave the political stage and leave good decent Americans the hell alone.

And their crooked gang of sick twisted and depraved bullshit artists.

I wish I played golf and could do a round with Rush.  He too understands my pain.   He carried me through the 90's while having to endure the media love affair with their darling Bill.  God help me if she wins and something happens to Rush.  Then again I have people on the Forum.
Title: Ukrainian trade dispute with Hillary buddies in the mix
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2014, 04:02:39 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 25, 2014, 09:50:40 AM
Hillary's Univision

It's no secret that the Leftmedia is desperate for another Democrat in the White House come 2016, or that many outlets want that Democrat to be Hillary Clinton. But few have given the unmistakable and direct endorsement that Haim Saban, owner of Univision, gave to Clinton. "Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine," he said. And USA Today reports, "Univision, the country's top Spanish-language network [and fifth largest network overall], has entered into a multiyear deal with Hillary Clinton to promote the health, education and well-being of young children." Out on a limb here, but that seems problematic. One might even think it amounts to in-kind campaign contributions. Yet other media outlets aren't making a peep.
Title: He ain't Spanish
Post by: ccp on February 25, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Another Soros type living like a king but dictating to the rest of us:

I know I am not the only Jew (20% of us) who have had enough of this crap.
Title: What is the hold up releasing the Clinton presidential papers?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2014, 05:05:21 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on February 26, 2014, 06:03:16 PM
It doesn't matter.  If anyone thinks the Clinton mob will ever release to the public any records with incriminating evidence they need their head examined.

When finally released we will find essentially nothing and their crowd will be laughing and yawning. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2014, 06:26:33 PM
But doesn't the decision actually rest with the President?

His  motives here may favor them, but it sure will be hard to explain if we keep the pressure on.  If he does the wrong thing, well then we can use that too.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on February 26, 2014, 11:40:30 PM
If they contained things the Clintons wanted public, we'd know about them by now.
Title: Hillary fired from Watergate for being a liar
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2014, 04:21:20 AM
Title: Re: Hillary fired from Watergate for being a liar
Post by: G M on February 27, 2014, 04:36:01 AM

How shocking!
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 03, 2014, 10:53:50 AM
Title: Hillary echoes appeasers line on Hitler in comments on Putin
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2014, 04:01:23 PM

Hillary Echoes Appeasers Line On Hitler In Comments On Putin


Published on on March 5, 2014

Without knowing that she was being recorded, Hillary Clinton told a recent gathering
that when [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin "looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he
believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia."  Her remarks come perilously
close to justifying Putin's behavior.
More of concern, the also echo the very justifications the Munich-era appeasers
cited for not responding to Hitler's incursions into Austria and the Sudetenland.

In the 1930s, it was common for advocates of appeasement toward Nazi Germany to
describe Hitler's ambitions to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia as merely an attempt
to unite all Germans under one roof.  When Hitler occupied the Rhineland, in
violation of the Treaty of Versailles, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said
he was just "marching into his own back yard."
In attributing to Russian leader Vladimir Putin the same rationale as Hitler used --
the desire to "protect my people," Hillary is echoing the appeaser's rationale for
muting their response to Nazi aggression eighty years ago.
Putin does, indeed, cite the concentration of ethnic Russians in all of the former
Soviet Republics to justify his intervention in their affairs.  These Russians live
there, largely, because former Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin ordered them to move
there to establish a Russian ethnic presence in these conquered territories and to
weaken the centrifugal forces of nationalism.
Hitler's foreign Germans largely lived in other lands as a result of the division of
territory after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles.  His demand that the three
million ethnic Germans who lived then in the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia
formed the basis for his demands to take over the territory.
In this case, too, Putin is using the justification of taking care of his people to
explain his invasion of the Crimea and his threats of invasion of the Ukraine. 
But only Hillary is buying it.
Her comparison of Hitler's transparently fraudulent characterization of his
motivations in the 30s with Putin's today was not to demean Putin's, but rather to
offer it some context and explanation, just one step short of a justification.
Putin could care less about the ethnic Russians in Ukraine just like Hitler did not
give a damn about the ethnic Germans living abroad.  Each used them as an excuse for
territorial acquisition and aggression.
It's too bad that Hillary chose to repeat this rationale for aggression in this
Her embrace of Putin's rationale -- or at least her citing it without refutation --
illustrates her naiveté when it comes to the Russian leader. 
The only thing Putin is looking to "reset" is territorial boundary of Russia.
Hillary didn't see through him then and she doesn't quite get it now.
Title: Re: Hillary echoes appeasers line on Hitler in comments on Putin
Post by: G M on March 05, 2014, 04:07:59 PM

Hillary Echoes Appeasers Line On Hitler In Comments On Putin


Published on on March 5, 2014

Without knowing that she was being recorded, Hillary Clinton told a recent gathering
that when [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin "looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he
believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia."  Her remarks come perilously
close to justifying Putin's behavior.
More of concern, the also echo the very justifications the Munich-era appeasers
cited for not responding to Hitler's incursions into Austria and the Sudetenland.

In the 1930s, it was common for advocates of appeasement toward Nazi Germany to
describe Hitler's ambitions to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia as merely an attempt
to unite all Germans under one roof.  When Hitler occupied the Rhineland, in
violation of the Treaty of Versailles, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said
he was just "marching into his own back yard."
In attributing to Russian leader Vladimir Putin the same rationale as Hitler used --
the desire to "protect my people," Hillary is echoing the appeaser's rationale for
muting their response to Nazi aggression eighty years ago.
Putin does, indeed, cite the concentration of ethnic Russians in all of the former
Soviet Republics to justify his intervention in their affairs.  These Russians live
there, largely, because former Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin ordered them to move
there to establish a Russian ethnic presence in these conquered territories and to
weaken the centrifugal forces of nationalism.
Hitler's foreign Germans largely lived in other lands as a result of the division of
territory after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles.  His demand that the three
million ethnic Germans who lived then in the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia
formed the basis for his demands to take over the territory.
In this case, too, Putin is using the justification of taking care of his people to
explain his invasion of the Crimea and his threats of invasion of the Ukraine. 
But only Hillary is buying it.
Her comparison of Hitler's transparently fraudulent characterization of his
motivations in the 30s with Putin's today was not to demean Putin's, but rather to
offer it some context and explanation, just one step short of a justification.
Putin could care less about the ethnic Russians in Ukraine just like Hitler did not
give a damn about the ethnic Germans living abroad.  Each used them as an excuse for
territorial acquisition and aggression.
It's too bad that Hillary chose to repeat this rationale for aggression in this
Her embrace of Putin's rationale -- or at least her citing it without refutation --
illustrates her naiveté when it comes to the Russian leader. 
The only thing Putin is looking to "reset" is territorial boundary of Russia.
Hillary didn't see through him then and she doesn't quite get it now.

At this point, what difference does it make?
Title: Hillary must be reading this thread
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2014, 02:23:27 AM
and noted my previous post and its implications with alarm:
Title: She must have went offscript when she made her Hitler Putin remarks
Post by: ccp on March 06, 2014, 08:30:26 AM
 "all parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at this delicate time."

Right after she makes criticisms that take her another week to try to explain and re-assemble.

"I am not making a comparison, certainly."

This she says right after she just made a comparison.  Now she looks like a fool walking backwards. 

Of course the MSM makes it look like she is tough.

*****Clinton again blasts Putin after her Hitler remark
Associated Press
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 14 hours ago

Clinton Again Blasts Putin After Hitler Remark
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin is a tough but thin-skinned leader who is squandering his country's potential, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday, a day after she likened his actions on the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.

Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender, warned during her a speech at the University of California, Los Angeles, that "all parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at this delicate time."

Putin has said he was protecting ethnic Russians by moving troops into Crimea.

Clinton said Tuesday at a closed fundraising luncheon in Long Beach that Putin's actions are similar what happened in the Nazi era in Czechoslovakia and Romania.

"Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s," Clinton said, according to the Press-Telegram of Long Beach. "Hitler kept saying, 'They're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people.' And that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."

Responding to a question submitted at the UCLA talk, Clinton said she was not making a comparison although Russia's actions were "reminiscent" of claims Germany made in the 1930s, when the Nazis said they needed to protect German minorities in Poland and elsewhere in Europe.

"The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities, that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe," she said.

"I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I am not making a comparison, certainly. But I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before," she said.

Clinton said Putin is trying to "re-Sovietize" the periphery of Russia but is actually squandering the potential of his nation and "threatening instability and even the peace of Europe."

In recent days, some Republicans, including Sen. John McCain have criticized the Obama administration's policy in Ukraine. Clinton echoed President Barack Obama's assessment that Russia's intervention was a violation of international law, and she said she supported the administration's call for Russia "to refrain from the threat or use of force."

Kathryn Stoner, a Russia expert at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, said she considered Clinton's comparison between Putin and the tactics of Nazi-era Germany "a bit of a stretch," in part because Putin "doesn't look like he is intent on spreading across the Ukraine and permanently occupying this area."

In a delicate diplomatic situation "I don't think it's helpful on either side to say things like this, but in these crises it happens," Stoner added****

 :lol: But she is a very nice person if you get to know her.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2014, 02:29:35 AM

March 6, 201'                                                       
                                                                                        VIDEO: Fans at DNC meeting can't name a single Hillary accomplishment

                                                                                        Published by: Dan Calabrese

                                                                                        Not that it matters.  We should know by now that stuff like track record and achievement are no longer even ancillary to the matter of choosing a president. They're now
completely irrelevant. The election of Obama established that, and his re-election cemented it. Democrats don't expect Obama to get results.  They expect him to protect their hold on power.
                                                                                        So if you had asked someone why Obama would be a good president in terms of ability to govern, the response will be a blank stare. What do you
mean? The job of a presidential candidate is not to govern. It's to get elected, and then to get re-elected. And this is why it doesn't matter to
these fine folks at the DNC that Hillary Clinton has never accomplished anything either:

                                                                                        The funniest thing about this is that they seem to understand on a certain level that they need totry to defend her as accomplished. That's
where you get nonsense like how "well-traveled" she is, or the totally meaningless rot about "how well she represented America".
                                                                                        The truth is that most of these folks probably don't even know what the Secretary of State does, let alone have the ability to assess whether she
did it well. I would like to have heard the guy ask them to name her major accomplishments during eight years in the U.S. Senate, since that would surely have elicted the same blank stares and baseless yammering
about how she "exercised leadership" or whatever.
                                                                                        Hillary's supporters don't back her because they think she's ever done anything to demonstrate she would be a good president. They back her
because they think she can win, and that means thousands of federal jobs that bring control of lots of money stay in Democrat hands. It really doesn't matter how the nation fares as long as the members of the
political class who reside on the left side of the aisle make out OK.
                                                                                        Coming up with a rationale to sell Hillary's candidacy to the general public is theoretically trickier. But if people are only paying attention
as much as they were when they decided to elect and re-elect Obama, maybe it won't be that hard after all.
                                                                                        "She's been everywhere."
                                                                                        "She's traveled so much."
                                                                                        "She's ready."
                                                                                        "She's such a fixture."
                                                                                        "She's tough."
                                                                                        "She's smart."
                                                                                        OK. Stop. How can you possibly offer a rejoinder to a case like this?
                                                                                        Hillary's presumptive candidacy is actually the most audacious test yet of the proposition that the Republican Party is completely inept, and
that is a proposition that history would suggest is sadly unlikely to fail.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on March 07, 2014, 07:06:39 AM
She allegedly has a vagina. Oh, and she has skillfully facilitated he husband's predatory behavior as a means to gather wealth and power and described his victims as "whiney women".

She's an amazing investor in cattle futures!

Isn't that the very embodiment of the feminist ideal?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2014, 12:38:57 PM
And somehow making those points will get her more votes , , ,
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2014, 09:20:14 AM
Clinton Campaign Corruption
Washington businessman Jeffrey Thompson pleaded guilty Monday to illegal campaign finance activities. Thompson funneled millions of dollars to several DC and federal office holders while getting a kickback in the form of city contracts. Among the recipients of his money was Hillary Clinton, whose 2008 presidential bid deposited over $600,000 of Thompson's "off the books" money. Clinton's aide, Minyon Moore, sought and secured the contributions, though prosecuting her for campaign finance violations now will be difficult given the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. Prosecutors say they have no evidence that Clinton was aware of the activity, but let's face it -- the Clintons are pros. And really, what difference does it make anyway?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on March 12, 2014, 05:38:55 PM
Dinesh D'souza was unavailable for comment.

Clinton Campaign Corruption
Washington businessman Jeffrey Thompson pleaded guilty Monday to illegal campaign finance activities. Thompson funneled millions of dollars to several DC and federal office holders while getting a kickback in the form of city contracts. Among the recipients of his money was Hillary Clinton, whose 2008 presidential bid deposited over $600,000 of Thompson's "off the books" money. Clinton's aide, Minyon Moore, sought and secured the contributions, though prosecuting her for campaign finance violations now will be difficult given the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. Prosecutors say they have no evidence that Clinton was aware of the activity, but let's face it -- the Clintons are pros. And really, what difference does it make anyway?

Title: Hillary pyschoanalyzes Putin
Post by: ccp on April 10, 2014, 02:51:44 AM
*****Hillary Clinton Psychoanalyzes Vladimir Putin

 By Liz Kreutz
Follow on Twitter
Apr 8, 2014 9:24pm

AP Hillary Clinton ml 140409 16x9 608 Hillary Clinton Psychoanalyzes Vladimir Putin
Credit: Timothy J. Gonzalez/Statesman Journal/AP Photo

Russian President Vladimir Putin may have a buff physique, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees right through it.

During a Q&A at a marketing summit in California today, Clinton gave a deep read on Putin’s personality, and compared the encounters she’s had with him to those she’s experienced on an elementary school playground.

“I have had my personal experiences with him,” she said, when answering a question about Putin and the recent situation in Crimea. “He’s a fascinating guy. Obviously he is determined.”

Clinton then proceeded to dissect his psyche.

“He is very difficult to read personally,” she said. “He is always looking for advantage. So he will try to put you ill at ease. He will even throw an insult your way. He will look bored and dismissive. He’ll do all of that.”

But Clinton said she was never fazed.

“I have a lot of experience with people acting like that,” she quipped. “Go back to elementary school. I’ve seen all of that, so I’m not impressed by it.”

Clinton made the comments during her first leg of a jam-packed, four-day long speaking tour through the West Coast at Marketo’s Marketing Nation Summit in San Francisco.

During her speech and the following Q&A, with Marketo CEO Phil Fernandez, Clinton spoke on issues including technology, immigration, income inequality, and advancement for women in the workplace.

The event wrapped up with the inevitable question about 2016. But when asked if she plans to run for president, Clinton gave no more of an indication that she had made a decision either way. She said that she is still thinking about it, and that she is “going to continue to think about it for a while.”

Even Clinton, however, admitted she’s become an expert at dodging the question.

“I danced around that pretty well, don’t you think?” she remarked with a smile.*****

Hillary knows not to let Putin's "buff" physique fool her.   I wonder if he knows not to let her hideous physique fool him.  Using HER school yard metaphor she sound like the ugly duckling who can't get the popular athlete so she simply has to insult him.

Low information voters will swoon over her nonsense.

Title: The ghost of Vince Foster lurks , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2014, 01:25:23 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons
Post by: DougMacG on April 17, 2014, 08:39:50 AM
Hillary won't run and can't win.  Where do they get this stuff?   :wink:

Hillary Clinton’s top 2016 worry is ‘Obama’s economy’

"...count me as skeptical that she will run — and even more skeptical that, if she does run, she wins. Because, based on everything she’s telling people about the problems of inheriting the Democratic Party from President Obama, even she’s skeptical of her chances."

Not to mention his foreign policy failures, most easily tied to her!
Title: Even POTH notices probs with Sec. Hillary's legacy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2014, 08:50:31 AM
speaking of which , , ,
Title: But she has lots of frequent flyer miles , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 21, 2014, 05:54:30 AM
Title: Hillary's accomplishments
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2014, 08:45:56 AM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on April 25, 2014, 06:29:13 PM
On MSLSD last night, I think, the noted her great achievement as Secretary of State was the wise move it was to become a Sec of St under Obama.  They then showed her popularity in the poles soared while she was Sec of St and are now down again.

So the spin is not what she accomplished other than it improved her popularity - at least that is what I deduced the logic to be.

This kind of slime brings back the gut wrenching memories of the 90s.   

Unfortunately we don't have an honest person in the WH now either.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on April 26, 2014, 06:44:29 AM
On MSLSD last night, I think, the noted her great achievement as Secretary of State was the wise move it was to become a Sec of St under Obama.  They then showed her popularity in the poles soared while she was Sec of St and are now down again.

So the spin is not what she accomplished other than it improved her popularity - at least that is what I deduced the logic to be.

This kind of slime brings back the gut wrenching memories of the 90s.   

Unfortunately we don't have an honest person in the WH now either.

She was willing to cut into wasteful diplomatic security budgets and reset the relationship with Russia.

Victory lap!
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 26, 2014, 10:07:41 AM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 27, 2014, 07:34:54 PM
Title: The 66 year old child
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 30, 2014, 05:03:03 AM
Pasting Obj's post on the 2016 thread here as well.

Hillary Clinton’s Problem Isn’t Age, It’s Experience

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 30, 2014 @

The problem with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy isn’t that she would take office at the age of 69. An older and more mature president is not a bad thing. It’s how little she has done in that time.

After 2008, when Hillary was beaten by an even more inexperienced candidate, most people forgot just how little experience she has holding elected office.

Hillary Clinton only won one political office and she did so in her fifties. Despite winning two elections, her Senate career only covered the period from January 2001 to January 2009.

It’s more time than Obama spent in the Senate, but that’s not saying much.

JFK was considered young and inexperienced after spending 14 years in Congress. Hillary Clinton isn’t young, but her experience in elected office at the age of 69 will be less than his was at the age of 44.

Hillary’s supporters will argue that she has plenty of experience in public life. Unfortunately it’s the wrong kind of experience.

Like Elizabeth Warren, a slightly younger and more left-wing Hillary clone, she spent a good deal of time in the corrupt intersection between leftist non-profits, corporate boards and politically connected legal positions. The bad lessons those posts taught her are evident from Whitewater and HillaryCare.

Hillary Clinton embodies the corrupt culture of Washington D.C. whose cronyism and nepotism she has far too much experience with as the other half of a power couple notorious for personal and political corruption.

When they left, Bill and Hillary trailed illegal pardons and stolen property behind them.  As recently as 2008, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote, “The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.”

Back in 2001, he had suggested that the Clintons might one day be “led away in handcuffs”.

That’s Hillary Clinton’s real experience and it’s not policy experience or foreign policy experience. It’s the politics of political corruption. Hillary Clinton’s track record doesn’t consist of policy achievements. It’s in the people she knows and owes favors to, the legion of corrupt associates of Clintonworld and the millionaires and billionaires who fund her unscrupulous political ambitions with their dirty money.

If Hillary’s last name were still Rodham, no one would have even proposed her for Senate. There is absolutely nothing in her record or her ideas that recommends her for higher office.

Not only is she inexperienced and inept, despite her many makeovers she is a colorless figure with the speaking style and fashion sense of a college registrar, and a bureaucrat’s cagey instinct for pre-emptive cover-ups that only make her look more suspicious even when she didn’t actually do anything wrong.

Hillary Clinton did nothing of note either as Senator or Secretary of State. The reason why her time in the Senate is remembered on the left for her Iraq War vote and her time as Secretary of State is remembered on the right for Benghazi is that there isn’t anything else to remember her for.

The high points of her national career are negative; terminated from Watergate after unethical behavior, a failure on government health care as First Lady, an Iraq War vote that she spent five years lying about and the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi as Secretary of State.

And a track record of trying to blame her decisions on everyone else.

Despite voting for the Iraq War, Hillary blamed Bush for a “rush to war” and for “triggering” the conflict. Few on the left have forgotten that she had even more positions on the Iraq War than John Kerry and that her positions changed completely based on what was going on in America and Iraq at the time.

When it came to Benghazi, other people took the fall for a horrifying failure that she claimed to be accepting responsibility for, while her own pet committee shifted the blame onto others.

Hillary Clinton accused Obama of being unready for a 3 A.M. phone call, but does anyone believe that she would take a 3 A.M. phone call and make a quick decision in a crisis? Is there anything in her track record in the Senate or as Secretary of State that suggests that she is bold and decisive?

Anything at all?

Hillary Clinton carefully avoided a track record. In the Senate, she invariably went with the least controversial position on every issue until she began overcompensating on Iraq to win back the left.

In the Senate, she was for a ban on flag burning, Cap and Trade, nuclear power, for Israel, for  Palestine, for abortion, against abortion, for harsh criminal penalties, against harsh criminal penalties, for No Child Left Behind, against No Child Left Behind, for gay marriage, against gay marriage, for medical marijuana and against medical marijuana.

If the polls opposed gay marriage, she was against it. If the polls supported it, she was for it. The same went for everything else.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton staked out a bold position in favor of visiting other countries and shaking hands with their leaders.

This is not a woman who takes 3 A.M. phone calls. Not without polling them first and issuing a non-definitive statement in the vaguest possible language that she can’t be held accountable for in any way.

This isn’t a record that speaks of experience. It’s the record of a woman working hard to avoid ever having an experience, a position or a conscience.

JFK came into the White House having seen combat and having come close to dying many times. He had spent almost a decade and a half in Congress and taken positions on important issues.

Hillary Clinton may be almost 70 at that same point, but without a fraction of his experience, and she has tried to make up for it with childish lies like claiming to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia, claiming to have negotiated open borders for refugees in Kosovo and  claiming to have been instrumental in the Irish peace process.

It’s no wonder that the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in Watergate said of her, “She was a liar.”

Hillary’s experience is as imaginary as her work bringing peace to Northern Ireland. The issue isn’t her age; it’s her lack of principles and her lack of courage. Hillary Clinton compensates for a mediocre career of political cronyism with ridiculous lies in an act of neurotic insecurity.

Hillary Clinton isn’t too old to be president. She’s too adolescent, untried and immature. She has made too few decisions that matter, taken too few risks and even less responsibility and lives an imaginary Walter Mitty life of death-defying adventures that only exist in her mind and her press releases.

Hillary isn’t just incompetent, corrupt or a liar. Like too many of her peers, she’s a 66-year-old child.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 01, 2014, 08:21:56 PM
Have not read these two  yet, posting them so I can read them tomorrow:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on May 01, 2014, 08:30:29 PM
Have not read these two  yet, posting them so I can read them tomorrow:

Rense is tinfoil land.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on May 05, 2014, 05:24:28 PM

If she can go past her role in this, she sure hasn't shown how.  If Hillary can't win over a lead female, liberal journalist from NPR, who can she win over?

MARA LIASSON, NPR: I think that it did give the story a new set of legs, and I think that even if nothing else comes out between now and 2016 this will be an issue in the 2016 race if Hillary Clinton runs.
"The brazenness and scope of the disinformation would make any KGB colonel sigh with admiration." - Mona Charen (below)

She may run and win but opponents will have plenty of material with which to expose her true, wicked self.
It was David Geffen who said, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, .
A prominent conservative female journalist nails it for Benghazi:

Could You Lie to a Bereaving Father?
Mona Charen - May 2, 2014

The Ben Rhodes memo revealing the duplicity of this administration on the subject of Benghazi reminds us about the character of those involved. That President Barack Obama could lie so evenly and so passionately (remember the second presidential debate?) is not perhaps surprising at this stage. But let's not forget what it took for Hillary Clinton to lie to the grieving father of an American hero.

First, a refresher on the facts (as they were certainly known to the principals):

A convoy of well-armed terrorists rolled into the complex housing the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. The attackers sealed off streets leading to the consulate with trucks and then commenced the attack on the building using rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47s, mortars and artillery mounted on trucks. Ambassador Chris Stevens called Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks for help, saying, "Greg, we're under attack." Hicks, who was in Tripoli, conveyed this up the line, but no help arrived.

The terrorists killed Stevens and another American and set the building ablaze. (Two more Americans would die later attempting to protect the annex.) As soon as the next morning, Congressman Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, described the attack as a "commando-style event" with "coordinated fire, direct fire, (and) indirect fire." A few days later the Libyan president said that it was a planned terrorist attack. He also said that the idea it was a "spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous." Yet a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign by the Obama administration managed to put the press off the story and mislead the American people.

The brazenness and scope of the disinformation would make any KGB colonel sigh with admiration. At 10:32 on the night of the attack, Clinton issued a statement deploring violence in response to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." In the days that followed, the president and his spokesman repeatedly invoked the supposedly offensive video as the cause of the attack. The president and secretary of state even filmed commercials to play in Muslim countries denouncing the video while also upholding America's tradition of religious and political freedom. "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," said the president. "But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."

But as the State Department finally disclosed a month after the attack (and as had been widely reported before then), there was no protest outside the American consulate in Benghazi. Nothing. Not a peep.

As the Rhodes memo makes clear, the president sent his U.N. ambassador to the Sunday shows to lie. Susan Rice was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." Rice did as she was told. The election was less than two months away. A foreign policy failure would not be politically convenient, so it would be made to go away. It's one of the minor injustices of this sorry story that Rice has received more condemnations than the president or secretary of state, who pulled the strings.

Clinton began to peddle the "Internet video" story from the first moments after the guns went silent in Benghazi. When the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. apologized to her on Sept. 13, 2012, for the "terror attack," she ignored this and burbled on about "the innocence of Muslims."

The president, vice president and Clinton welcomed the bodies of Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Sept. 14. According to Woods' father, the vice president used remarkably offensive locker room talk about the deceased Navy SEAL, but Clinton stayed on message. She greeted the man whose son had bravely attempted to fight off far more numerous and better-armed terrorists on the roof of the CIA annex and who gave his life. Did she praise the courage and self-sacrifice of the decorated Navy SEAL? Did she express regret that he had been left nearly alone to fight off the Islamist terrorists? No. Not even the flag-draped coffins spread before Clinton could shake her iron determination to stick with the script. She told Woods they would catch the guy who made the Internet film and make sure he was punished.

Most politicians are capable of stretching the truth on occasion. But this question, this setting and this egregious a lie suggest that Clinton's conscience -- if she ever had one -- is growing flaccid from disuse.

Title: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorist
Post by: DougMacG on May 08, 2014, 07:51:41 AM
One must ask WHY?  Afraid to call terror what it is? 

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment...”

So did this mass kidnapping.

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorist

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

On Wednesday, Clinton said that the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria.” Clinton said that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counterterrorism.

What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.

‪Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.

The State Department’s refusal to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization prevented U.S. law enforcement agencies from fully addressing the growing Boko Haram threat in those crucial two years, multiple GOP lawmakers told The Daily Beast.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”
“For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “The U.S. government should have moved more quickly to list them as a terrorist organization and brought U.S. resources to track and disrupt their activities. The failure to act swiftly has had consequences.”

Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.

In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.

“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”

Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to regimes guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”

Twenty female senators wrote to President Obama Tuesday urging him to now push for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be added to the United Nations Security Council al Qaeda sanctions list. (Earlier this year, Boko Haram’s leader express solidarity with al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Yemen, according to the SITE Monitoring Service, which tracks jihadist communications.)
“In the face of the brazen nature of this horrific attack, the international community must impose further sanctions on this terrorist organization. Boko Haram is a threat to innocent civilians in Nigeria, to regional security, and to U.S. national interests,” the senators wrote.

The White House declined Wednesday to say whether or not the president will push for Boko Haram to be added to the U.N. list.

“Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time,” National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Lalley told The Daily Beast in a statement. “We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we're actively exploring -- in partnership with Nigeria and others -- broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions."

Representative for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on May 08, 2014, 08:28:41 AM
The hILL is already out along with Obamster on the talk circuit turning this into the her image of girl power.  Of course this is horrific.  Along with all the other horror stories that come out of Africa as long as I can remember.   Black on Black crime.  Remember Bush I going into Somalia for humanitarian reasons?

But she seizes on this to change the topic from Lewinsky and it fits her gender twist.  IF 200 Black boys were murdered she would have been silent.

Typical Clinton change the story, twist to her political game and benefit and the journalist MSM do everything to give HER free press.  Why is it her opinion even matters now on this?

Ten more years of the Clintons.... :cry: :x :roll:
Title: Hillary Clinton: No Reason To Further Investigate Benghazi
Post by: DougMacG on May 08, 2014, 08:37:00 AM
You wish!

This gal is going to survive the scrutiny of a Presidential election and win 45 states?  I don't think so.

ROBIN ROBERTS, ABC NEWS: Benghazi, the new investigation. Are you satisfied with the answers and are you content with what you know what happened?

HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, of course there are a lot of reasons why -- despite all of the hearings, all of the information that’s been provided -- some choose not to be satisfied and choose to continue to move forward. (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?) That’s their choice. And I do not believe there is any reason for it to continue in this way, but they get to call the shots in the Congress.

Then why did you lie about the cause of the attack?  Where were you when the US decided to surrender and send no help?  Did you rise up and object?  Who witnessed that?  Why did they close the embassy in Tripoli for security risk if what happened in Benghazi was merely a video protest that just got out of control?  Since you utteredt he same words BEFORE the Ben Rhodes memo, were you the author of that national lie?

To all these officials of all administrations, we shouldn't have to wait and buy your damn books to find out what happened when we trusted you with our national security interests.  
Title: As Sec. State Hillary refused to put Boko Haurm on terrorist list
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 08, 2014, 06:15:32 PM

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
May 8, 2014
Whoops! Guess What Hillary Didn't Do While She Was Secretary of State . . .

Boy, this is awkward:

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria.

What Clinton didn't mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

"The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn't use. And nobody can say she wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy," said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. "The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials."

Anybody else think we'll be hearing a lot about Boko Haram between now and Election Day 2016?
Title: Boko Harum and Hillary's culture of complacency
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2014, 10:03:17 AM

May 9, 2014
Signs of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Culture of Complacency

Of course:


Notice this from Jeryl Bier on the State Department's reluctance to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization:
In 2012, even U.S. State Department diplomats in Nigeria seemed mystified about why the government was "reluctant" to issue the designation.
On September 20, 2012, then Bureau of African Affairs Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson appeared on a State Department "Live at State" webchat regarding "U.S. Policy toward Sub-Saharan Africa." Questions from journalists and other individuals via webchat were posed to Carson by the host, Holly Jensen. At one point, a question was asked by the "U.S. Consulate in Lagos [Nigeria]":

MS. JENSEN: The U.S. Consulate in Lagos wants to know: Why is the government reluctant to designate the Boko Haram sect as a foreign terrorist organization?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Thank you very much. We look at the issue of Boko Haram as a major concern not only to Nigeria but also to Nigeria's neighbors and Niger and Cameroon and Benin as well. Boko Haram, we believe, is not a homogenous, monolithic organization, but it is comprised of several different kinds of groups.
. . . In the September 2012 webchat, Carson seemed to suggest that the State Department did not even consider the "Boko Haram movement," as he called it, to necessarily be a terror organization, but rather several groups simply "focused on trying to discredit the Nigerian Government":

[CARSON:] But we believe that the bulk of the Boko Haram movement is -- they're focused on trying to discredit the Nigerian Government, trying to do everything in its power to show that the government is ineffective in the defense of its people and in the protection of government institutions, so we have not designated the entire organization. We constantly keep that under review, but we have, in fact, designated the three top leaders in Boko Haram who we believe to be out establishing broader terrorist networks and who have a broader jihadist agenda that goes beyond simply discrediting the Nigerian Government.

As I laid out on Campaign Spot yesterday, Boko Haram's terror tactics were crystal clear by 2009; by 2012, it was ludicrously inaccurate to characterize them as "focused on trying to discredit the Nigerian government."

With Benghazi and now Nigeria, we have two examples of State Department people on the ground sending back warnings of gathering terrorist threats . . . and in both cases, the warnings were ignored.

Remember all the talk about New Jersey governor Chris Christie's alleged culture of bullying within his administration? How about the signs of a culture of complacency in Hillary Clinton's State Department?


The Saga of Boko Haram and Hashtag Diplomacy

The tough face of Obama diplomacy
If you ask most Americans about Boko Harum, they might think you're talking about the psychedelic rock band Procol Harum, best known for "A Whiter Shade of Pale." But this band is a group of Islamic terrorists who are deadly serious about their craft, including the kidnapping of hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls in April.
In an effort at social media diplomacy, First Lady Michelle Obama was photographed with a sad face and holding a sign with the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. This seems to be in conjunction with a second social media effort by some Hollywood actors who play tough guys on screen admonishing the terrorists that #RealMenDontBuyGirls -- one threat made by Boko Harum was to "sell them in the market, by Allah." It doesn't seem that a Twitter hashtag game would dissuade them.
Unfortunately, in the real world, there isn't much that can be done to Boko Harum at the moment, at least not without potentially putting the kidnapping victims at risk. The group was on the State Department's radar screen, but then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resisted for two years labeling it a terrorist group, which may have hampered our present ability to respond.
The obvious question is why did the State Department resist? A look at the timing and narrative provides the answer. After Boko Harum bombed the UN headquarters in Nigeria's capital city, Abuja, the CIA, the FBI and others urged the State Department to place the group on the list of foreign terrorist organizations. The group had ties to al-Qaida, however, which Barack Obama claimed he had "decimated." Hence, no terror designation for Boko Harum. Clinton can tweet, "We must stand up to terrorism," all she wants, but that doesn't explain her dereliction of duty in doing just that when she actually had authority.
Trying to manage Obama's flailing foreign policy, there's no question the State Department is also suffering greatly under the feckless leadership of John Kerry. But our bitter foreign policy harvest was sown by Clinton. Had sanity prevailed, Boko Harum would have been added to our terrorist watch list two years ago. Instead, as Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review, "Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have convinced themselves that they know more about Islam than Muslim terrorists do, and that the peaceful, pliable, progressive Islam they have concocted somehow renders the jihadists' Islam false." There are over 200 Nigerian girls and young women who would beg to differ.
This self-deception has proven dangerous and destructive, and the new hashtag for the Obama/Clinton/Kerry State Department should be #CriminalIncompetence. Finally, if nothing else, we see once again that Clinton is utterly unfit to serve as commander in chief.

Title: Newt adds to the Boko Harum story
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2014, 07:31:36 PM
Some clickable URLs in the article at

Hillary Clinton, Boko Haram and Benghazi: The Real Scandal

Hillary Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram could become at least as serious an issue as her decisions surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate Benghazi.

Much of the attention Thursday was on the announcement that the House will create a select committee to investigate Benghazi, but the same day, Daily Beast reporter Josh Rogin revealed details about her time as Secretary of State that raise significant questions about her broader record on issues of terrorism.

Rogin reported that from 2011 through early 2013, the Clinton State Department repeatedly rejected efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. In recent weeks, the group has exploded onto the world stage by kidnapping more than 250 girls at a Nigerian boarding school.

It is so clearly and vividly a terrorist organization that it seems indefensible that the Clinton State Department would have refused to designate it as such. A thorough investigation of the decision process that protected Boko Haram from 2011 until late 2013 could be devastating.

Now that Boko Haram has attracted worldwide attention for its vicious assault on young girls, political leaders, including former Secretary Clinton, are rushing to issue emotionally powerful but practically meaningless statements.

Hillary tweeted: "Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls"
Hillary's tweet contrasts vividly with her failure to stand up to terrorism in 2011 by naming Boko Haram for what it was.

The requests to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization were serious and came from very responsible authorities.

As Josh Rogin reported:

“What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

“’The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,’ said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. ‘The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.’

“In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a ‘safe haven’ for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.”

The protection of Boko Haram from designation as a terrorist organization is even more unbelievable when you read the description of the group’s activities in the American Foreign Policy Council's World Almanac of Islamism.

Consider the following highlights:

•   Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful."

•   The initial Boko Haram organization grew to an estimated 280,000 followers. In 2009 there was a huge fight with the Nigerian Army and over 1,000 followers and the founder were killed.

•   A revitalized Boko Haram launched an attack on Bauchi prison on September 7, 2010.

•   Since then they have carried out over 600 attacks killing over 3,800 people.

•   Boko Haram's orientation can be discerned in its support for Taliban-like extremist Sharia and its designation of its original encampment in northern Nigeria as "Afghanistan."

•   The Nigerian terrorists have allied with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and a number of transnational terrorist groups.

•   On Christmas Day in 2011 Boko Haram staged church bombings.

•   Boko Haram has deep ties with extremists in Saudi Arabia. Supposedly dozens have been trained in Afghanistan.

Given these facts it is amazing that Secretary Clinton's State Department refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, since clearly it was engaged in terrorist activities. Why would the department she led not call a terrorist group a terrorist group when it was in her power to do so, and, as Rogin reports, the FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and many members of both the House and Senate were urging her to do just that?
Rogin reports that some U.S. officials, and possibly the Nigerian government, opposed the listing because they thought it might give the group more publicity. But this is a fairly weak rationale. For one thing, Boko Haram seems to have managed the publicity part on its own. And despite designating three individuals associated with Boko Haram as terrorists in June 2012, by refusing to list the organization, the State Department was denying the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department the tools they were seeking to use against the group as a whole and anyone linked to it.

It is a potentially devastating addition to a record as secretary of State that included a number of decisions favoring the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (after abandoning a longtime U.S. ally there), as well as appeasing a virulently anti-American regime in Iran--moves that have not turned out so well, to say the least.

Now the Boko Haram decision raises a whole new set of questions.

How could the Clinton State Department reject naming Boko Haram as a terrorist group?

Who was involved in blocking Boko Haram's terrorist designation?

Are any of the so-called experts who were totally wrong still at the State Department?

Did Secretary Clinton have anything to do with refusing to designate Boko Haram?

If not, was she even aware of the controversy? Shouldn’t she certainly have been aware, considering the number of federal agencies and members of Congress that were asking her to designate the organization?

These questions about Secretary Clinton’s record are potentially even more serious than the questions about Benghazi. As Congressman Patrick Meehan, who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, told Rogin, by failing to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization in 2011, “We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago.”

In light of the recent events in Nigeria, Secretary Clinton and other key State Department officials owe the American people some answers about their decisions.

Your Friend,
Title: Monica Lewinsky Wasn't a Victim - America Was...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 12, 2014, 04:54:21 PM
Monica Lewinsky Wasn’t a Victim —- America Was

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On May 12, 2014 @

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t brought back from a cul-de-sac of the ‘90s celebrity scandal universe, where Kato Kaelin still sleeps on a couch, Amy Fisher stalks quiet Long Island streets and Tonya Harding skates around in circles, in order to hurt Bill and Hillary.

Vanity Fair brought Monica in to help them.

That’s why it’s Monica’s essay in Vanity Fair and not the essays of any of the women whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and whom Hillary Clinton tried to silence.

Hillary’s political career was built on Monica Lewinsky and cancer. Rudy Giuliani’s cancer. Without Monica and cancer, instead of running for president she would be delivering a commencement address at Bennington College and the dean would be introducing her as Hillary Rodham.

Monica made Bill and Hillary into the victims of their own misbehavior. Vanity Fair is hoping that Democrats forget the political dysfunction, sellouts and blatant corruption of the Clinton years. Its editorial staff is hoping that they’ll get angry about Ken Starr and “privacy violations” all over again.

But Bill and Hillary aren’t victims. They’re two dysfunctional people with a knack for making their personal problems into the country’s problem. They’ve done it before and they’re doing it again. They deal with their personal problems, just as they dealt with Monica Lewinsky, through abuses of power.

Monica was disposable. If it hadn’t been her, it would have been someone else. Bill and Hillary treated her the way they treated any woman who became an obstacle to their political ambitions. That’s a step up from how the Kennedy clan treated inconvenient women by drowning them, drugging them or lobotomizing them.

Feminists are debating whether Hillary was right to call Monica a “narcissistic loony toon” instead of discussing the private War on Women she waged against any woman complaining about her husband’s behavior. It’s a cheap distraction from what really matters. The outrage over the War on Women, ‘90s edition, featuring stops at the Tailhook Symposium and Anita Hill’s Department of Education digs, did not extend to abuses by powerful liberal men. There was one set of feminist rules for a drunken Navy lieutenant in Vegas and another for the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

As long as he was a liberal.

Monica isn’t a victim either. Liberal feminists were hypocritical in their treatment of her, but they were far more hypocritical in their treatment of the women Bill Clinton sexually harassed. Talking about how unfair they were to Monica lets them off the hook for how unfair they were to women who did not want a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton and who demonstrated more authentic feminist creds by speaking out about it than the professional liberal feminists who smeared and demeaned them to protect Bill.

There was a power imbalance between Bill and Monica. And Bill Clinton is a compulsive manipulator, but Monica wasn’t a child. She chose to have an affair with another woman’s husband and was humiliated because that man was the President of the United States. The outcome was inevitable.

Hillary Clinton was right to call her a “narcissistic loony toon”, but Hillary, running for president on a platform of her own Monica-manufactured celebrity, is an even more narcissistic loony toon than Monica could ever aspire to be. And Bill Clinton, who chases cameras as avidly as he chases women, is the king of all narcissistic loony toons.

The real victim wasn’t any of these three repulsive characters. It was the United States of America.

The American people wanted good government and instead got a demented duo whose uncontrolled appetite for power, admiration and everything else, including White House furniture, knew no limit.

And they’re still the victims today.

There are two types of victims. There are those Americans who consented to have a political relationship with Bill and Hillary. Twice. And there are those who didn’t.

There are the Monica Lewinskys and the Juanita Broaddricks.

There are Americans who were raped by the Clinton Administration. And there are Americans who chose to be abused by it and would still be willing to be abused by it all over again.

Obama and Clinton voters have much in common with Monica Lewinsky. They caused their own problems and yet, like Monica, they whine about being unable to find work. They blame Republicans for humiliating them by revealing their disgusting relationship with a politician who is a serial liar.

And they act as if the whole thing is someone else’s fault.

They whine that if it hadn’t been for the Republicans no one would know just how disgusting their affair with the man who wrecked the country’s national defense, sold pardons like hotcakes and used his own adultery to position his wife’s presidential bid was.

They complain that if Republicans would just shut up about Benghazi, the national debt, the return of Al Qaeda, the imperial presidency and the constant lies leaking out of the White House, no one would judge them for that faded Obama-Biden sticker on the back bumper of their taxpayer subsidized Prius.

They’re not the victims. Victims don’t choose to be victims.

It’s the women who didn’t accede to Bill Clinton’s sexual demands and were smeared by Hillary Clinton for daring to complain about it… who are the victims. It’s the Americans who didn’t play Monica Lewinsky at the ballot box, surrendering to Bill Clinton’s charms while ignoring a funny little man in a cave who was threatening to attack America after bombing its embassies, who are the victims.

Monica Lewinsky is the Clinton and Obama voter, narcissistic to a fault and incapable of acknowledging fault, feeling victimized but unable to point to the real perpetrator, blaming Republicans for exposing her sordid behavior and that of the man who was taking advantage of her, and then complaining that she can’t find work.

Who needs a special essay from Monica Lewinsky when any Obama voter will tell you the same story?

The real victims of Bill, Barack and Hillary are the hardworking Americans who do the best they can for their families and their country, who don’t make excuses for their misbehavior or the misbehavior of their politicians, who work hard at their jobs and work harder to raise their children.

They are the victims of bad governments and bad politicians they didn’t vote for. They are harassed and assaulted by a corrupt political machine, a power-mad bureaucracy and a degenerate Washington establishment. They did not consent to be abused by Bill, Barack, Hillary, the EPA, the DOJ, the BLM, the FEC, the IRS and every other alphabet soup agency out of D.C.

And they are smeared and demonized when they complain about it.

They are the real victims of the abusers, exploiters and manipulators in Washington D.C. whose lust for power knows no limits. And they are also the victims of the Monica Lewinsky voters who whine and make faces, but refuse to end their political affair with the abusers of their country.
Title: Rove vs. Hillary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2014, 06:48:18 AM
Title: LA Times story...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 14, 2014, 08:26:25 AM
"Barring the release of audio, it is impossible to determine whether Rove uttered the words “brain damage,” but it’s also beside the point. The point was that through his words prospective 2016 voters were reminded of Clinton’s 2012 health issues and, by extension, a host of loosely related things, including her age (69 were she to be elected in November 2016) and her family’s past resistance to transparancy.

And Clinton was reminded that, if she runs, her opponents will be merciless and not always bound by reality."

Oh, cry me a river!  POOR Hillary.  She's SO put upon by mean old nasty Karl Rove.  Of course neither she nor her husband have ever employed such mean, nasty tactics.  They're just innocent victims.  And she's a WOMAN, for God's sake!  How could Rove be so insensitive?  Gag me.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2014, 02:08:07 PM
 :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Dick Morris is an idiot sometimes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2014, 03:18:11 PM
One would hope so!


Did Clinton OK Surveillance?
Published on on May 13, 2014

A new book by Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden's journalistic confessor, charges that former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice asked the National Security Agency to spy on U.N. diplomats from countries casting the swing votes on the Security Council on whether to toughen sanctions on Iran.

So did then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approve the surveillance? Did she know about it?

We need to know if the person who wants to be president of the United States approved and allowed the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats.

In Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the U.S. Surveillance State, he charges that as the Security Council met in May 2010 to consider tougher sanctions against Iran, Rice asked the NSA for help "so that she could develop a strategy" to win over the votes of undecided diplomats. Greenwald bases his accusation on leaked agency document unveiled by Snowden.

The NSA obligingly moved ahead with the paperwork to get approval to spy on diplomats from four Council members: Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda. On May 26, 2010, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the surveillance. What was the conceivable connection with terrorism that justified these taps?

But, the move worked. All four nations fell in line and voted for the sanctions.

Afterward, a grateful Rice wrote the NSA thanking it. She said that the intelligence helped her to know when diplomats from the other permanent Council members -- Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France -- "were telling the truth ... revealed their real position on sanctions ... gave us an upper hand in negotiations ... and provided information on various countries 'red lines.' "

Unless she had blinders on, Clinton must have known of this surveillance and, most likely, would have been privy to the intercepts themselves. Whether she approved this kind of cloak-and-dagger diplomacy, which sows distrust of America all over the world, is a key question as her presidential candidacy looms.

Clinton had previously directly ordered spying on foreign diplomats in connection with the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change in December 2009. Again, documents from Snowden reveal that the NSA conducted surveillance on foreign delegations and monitored their communications, giving U.S. negotiators advance information about other nations' positions at the meeting.

The NSA monitoring likely played a role in a dramatic moment at the conference when, according to reports in The New York Times, "Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret. The intrusion led to new talks that cemented central terms of the deal, American officials said."

Jairam Ramesh, then the Indian environment minister and an important player in the talks, asked why the U.S. spied on rival delegations: "Why the hell did they do this and at the end of this, what did they get out of Copenhagen? They got some outcome but certainly not the outcome they wanted. It was completely silly of them."

Clinton called for spying on other diplomats as soon as she took office as secretary of State. Documents unearthed by WikiLeaks show that she signed an order telling U.S. diplomats to spy on Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the U.N., and other top U.N. officials. She asked her people to get biometric information, such as DNA, fingerprints and iris scans, as well as passwords and personal encryption used in private and commercial networks for official communications. She also asked for Internet and intranet usernames, email addresses, website URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers and work schedules.

With this penchant for spying, we are entitled to know if Clinton was involved in the latest revelations to come from the never-ending Snowden disclosures.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on May 15, 2014, 05:32:04 AM
Spying on foreign nationals, including diplomats IS the job of our intelligence agencies.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2014, 06:18:59 AM
Morris's contempt for the Clintons appears to be quite genuine and even to the point of overriding logic as we see here.  He has never met a subject on which he does not feel qualified to opine.  Apparently his syllogism is that because due to his being a polling and Clinton expert on FOX he is an expert on any subject covered by FOX. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons, Washington Post: Yes a brain injury
Post by: DougMacG on May 15, 2014, 06:56:33 AM
Yes, a brain injury.  No, it shouldn't be Republicans pointing it out.
Why did Hillary Clinton wear those glasses after her concussion?


Technically, Republican strategist Karl Rove was correct when he suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffered a “traumatic brain injury” after a fall in 2012. A concussion is the most common form of mild traumatic brain injury, according to experts in the field. It is caused by a blow to the head or an action that bounces the brain around in the skull, such as whiplash from a car accident.

Symptoms can include headache, dizziness, sensitivity to light and blurred vision, all of which can occur even when MRI and CT scans are normal, said Steven Galetta, a neuro-opthalmologist at the NYU Langone Medical Center in New York.
Rove’s comment that when Clinton appeared in public after recuperating “she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury,” referred to a lens or lenses that the former first lady wore for a short period after her concussion and a subsequent blood clot that developed in her brain. Known as a Fresnel prism, the device helps treat double vision, especially for close-up viewing, experts said.

Special lines in the prism bend light seen by one eye and align it with the image seen by the other, according to Galetta and a representative of the company that distributes the lenses. The prism can be in the form of a clear plastic overlay that is pasted to the lens of eyeglasses in cases, such as Clinton’s, when the double vision is expected to be temporary, or can be ground into the lens for longer-term use, according to Laura Balcer, director of the Concussion Center at NYU Langone medical center. When built into the eyeglass lens itself, the prism is not visible, Balcer said.

On Tuesday, Rove distanced himself from a provocative report in Monday’s New York Post, saying he does not believe — as the newspaper asserted he had said — that Clinton suffered “brain damage” when she fell and sustained a head injury in December 2012. The fall was attributed to dehydration from a stomach virus, and Clinton subsequently developed a blood clot, which was treated.

Stomach flu? Or ...?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on May 15, 2014, 07:09:27 AM
She can clear all this up by releasing her medical records.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on May 15, 2014, 07:35:14 AM
One of my fellow neurologist friend whose politics would fit well on this board said she was lucky to come out of it without (obvious) brain damage.   It is not my area, but my understanding from him is that some of these people do suffer strokes and permanent brain damage.

Of course she had immediate and top of the line care.  Suppose it was someone who was home alone.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on May 15, 2014, 07:45:18 AM
GM, what do you think?

Can we banish or send her on a long vacation to:


We need to rid the world of her where she can do no further harm.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on May 15, 2014, 08:10:57 AM
Well, if the republicans wanted to win, they would beat the brain damage meme into the low info voters.

But it's the repubs we are talking about.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: objectivist1 on May 15, 2014, 08:46:34 AM
Well, this is true that the Republican establishment has an incredible knack for pulling defeat from the jaws of victory (Hello, Mr. Karl Rove,) but I hope that we all focus hard on this midterm election THIS year and work hard for true conservative candidates.  Then, if God forbid, this horrid woman should become President, we can keep her in check.

Frankly, I'm still not completely convinced that Obama intends to leave office on schedule.  We've got to cripple him for these last couple of years, regardless.
Title: Inappropriate arguments against Hillary that they used against opponents
Post by: DougMacG on May 20, 2014, 09:40:11 AM


by BEN SHAPIRO  19 May 2014
The media are on a mission to protect Hillary no matter what the cost. And that means they’ll invalidate any attack on her as beyond the pale, over the top, and underhanded. Even if she or her husband have used precisely the same angles of attack on her opponents in the past.
Age and Health. This week, the media went berserk over Karl Rove’s suggestion that Hillary Clinton underwent brain damage. President Clinton, while maintaining that Hillary had to do six months of tough recovery, stated, “First, they said she faked her concussion and now they say she is auditioning for her part on ‘The Walking Dead.’” The media brayed that it would be entirely inappropriate for Republicans to talk about Clinton’s age or health.
Ignoring, of course, the fact that Bill Clinton had no problem attacking Bob Dole’s age in 1996. In typically passive-aggressive fashion, Clinton stated in a debate with Dole, “I can only tell you that I don’t Senator Dole is too old to be President, but it’s the age of his ideas that I question.”
What Did She Know and When Did She Know It? Hillary’s defenders have stated that questions about Benghazi have been answered. On Sunday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated, “I think it’s a hunting mission for a lynch mob.” Not coincidentally, Feinstein praised Hillary to the skies, stating, “In my view, she’s in the prime of her political life. She’s got the energy; she’s articulate; she’s got the background; she’s got the smarts; she has all of the elements of a good leader.” Feinstein simply wrote off questions about why her State Department refused requests for additional security, why the State Department did not request military intervention, and why the State Department took part in manipulating talking points presented to the American people.
Meanwhile, Democrats and media personalities have dismissed the fact that Clinton refused to designate the Islamist terror group Boko Haram a terror group.
But it was Hillary on the floor of the Senate, standing with newspaper outstretched in 2002, the headline blaring, “BUSH KNEW.” She then stated, “We have learned that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible plot by those associated with Osama Bin Laden to hijack a US airliner.”
But when she was in a position of power, her ignorance was bliss – and now it’s off limits.
She’s Never Accomplished Anything. None of Hillary’s supporters seem to be able to answer the simplest question about her: with all of her power and prestige, what has she actually accomplished? And yet that question has now been deemed irrelevant – we all know what she’s done, even if no one ever knows what she’s done.
When Hillary Clinton was running against a young Senator named Barack Obama, however, Obama’s lack of accomplishment was central to Hillary’s campaign. “An untested man who offers false hope,” she said. “On a lot of these issues it is hard to know where he stands, and people need to ask that...Where’s the beef?”
She Goes Missing When Stakes Are Highest. When the manure hit the fan in Benghazi, Hillary went completely AWOL. In the aftermath of the attacks, she sent out uninvolved UN ambassador Susan Rice to take the hits on the Sunday shows. She then jetted off to Australia for a wine tasting. But we’re supposed to ignore her complete absence during the most critical period of her tenure as Secretary of State.
She wasn’t so generous to Obama during their 2008 race, when her campaign crafted an ad suggesting that if the red phone rang at 3 a.m., Obama wouldn’t be there to pick it up.
Hillary’s Marriage Is A Sham. Now that Bill and Hillary are back in the spotlight, many Americans are wondering just how their business relationship will work again in the White House. They’re wondering if they want the drama of the Arkansan Carringtons. That’s off limits. Or so say the media, who are the self-appointed arbiters of appropriateness (even when they’re spilling the juicy details of Bill’s Oval Office doings).
But it was Hillary attacking other women back when her husband was president. Not only did she attack Monica Lewinsky as an insane narcissist, she reportedly attempted to discredit “trailer trash” Gennifer Flowers. And she tried to have her husband’s campaign plant rumors that George H.W. Bush had cheated on Barbara Bush.
Title: Morris: Hillary opposed sanctions on Iran
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2014, 11:24:42 AM
Turn Up The Heat On Clinton
Published on on May 20, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has characterized her place in history as akin to a runner in a relay race: taking the baton, running her laps as best she can, and then handing it off to John Kerry, her successor.

But the actual record indicates that, rather than a relay, her role in Iranian sanctions might better be compared to a high hurdles race -- with Clinton erecting the hurdles.

In her full-throated defense of her tenure as America's top diplomat, delivered to the American Jewish Committee last week, Clinton touted her efforts to impose, strengthen and enforce sanctions against Iran in an effort to stop its nuclear weapons program. But the record shows she fought tooth and nail against each new round of sanctions and had her minions in the State Department do all they could to kill them.

In her speech, she said, "We went after Iran's oil industry, banks, and weapons programs, enlisted insurance firms, shipping lines, energy companies, financial institutions and others to cut Iran off from global commerce."

Her supposed role in backing sanctions against Iran was the only specific part of her tenure or legacy that she chose to mention.

But the record contradicts even this claim. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) who, along with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), led the battle for sanctions, says that she was on the other side.

"Secretary Clinton's comments are a blatant revision of history," he told The Daily Beast. "The fact is the Obama Administration has opposed sanctions every step of the way as was thoroughly documented at the time."

The record is clear, documented in The Daily Beast.
Click Here To Sign The Petition To Give Congress Power To Veto Final Iran Deal!

In 2009, the administration opposed the passage of gasoline sanctions against Iran, which eventually passed unanimously.

In 2011, Clinton sent her undersecretary, Wendy Sherman, to state her "strong opposition" to sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran.

Sherman said it would antagonize U.S. allies. She even had her top deputy at the State Department, Bill Burns, meet with top senators to oppose the amendment. It eventually passed unanimously.

Menendez angrily accused the administration of negotiating in bad faith, saying "at your request, we engaged in an effort to come to a bipartisan agreement ... and now you come here and vitiate that agreement."

In 2012, Clinton opposed barring Iranian financial institutions from doing business with SWIFT, the global financial clearinghouse.

The administration, reportedly, was afraid that "the SWIFT-related sanctions would cause too much disruption to the system."

Also in 2012, the administration battled for a six-month delay in additional sanctions. Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said that "the decision not to crack down immediately on gold exports ... ultimately allowed the Iranians to blow a massive hole in the international financial sanctions." Iran was able to sell oil to Turkey in return for gold to shore up its dwindling hard currency reserves.

Clinton's one apparent contribution to the enforcement of sanctions was her help in lining up votes in the United Nations Security Council, but even this claim may backfire. Recent leaks from Edward Snowden indicate that former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice requested the National Security Agency help in spying on swing votes in the council: Nigeria, Bosnia, Gabon and Uganda. Did the secretary of State use NSA surveillance to get the votes?

Clinton's role in surveillance has been largely unexplored. It deserves more scrutiny.
Title: Just unbelievable how low this low life is
Post by: ccp on May 30, 2014, 07:00:53 PM
Clinton writes that she takes responsibility for the deaths, but adds that there has been "a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation and flat-out deceit" by some in politics and the media.

"I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It's just plain wrong, and it's unworthy of our great country," Clinton writes. "Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me."

Can anyone think of anything more infuriating than this?   IS this the best America can do?  A shyster lying slob.  The corruption is mind boggling.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2014, 07:27:43 PM
Well, as a contribution to the defense of our Republic, I offer this thread as a research resource for those who would stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: objectivist1 on May 30, 2014, 07:34:19 PM
I'm not embarrassed to admit that I will relish the opportunity to watch Hillary squirm under Trey Gowdy's aggressive questioning.  I hope it happens.  She and her husband are a disgrace to this nation.  The thought of her as a Presidential candidate is nauseating.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on May 30, 2014, 07:52:23 PM
"as a contribution to the defense of our Republic"

Yes Crafty.  *You* have contributed immensely.

But their is something that has gone rotten about our Republic.

The corruption on display from these people in Washington and those who are happy to look the other way for varieties of reasons is just plain depressing.

To me all those things you posted to cheer up Conservatives means nothing if we can't expect our leaders to be honest and forthright and to stop playing with our heads.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 31, 2014, 07:15:45 AM
I think our Founding Fathers expected the foibles and weaknesses of human nature-- it's why they wrote the Constitution as they did.  The Americana Creed is a magnificent one.  It does poorly now because we have not taught it.  It is no coincidence that I quote our FF (hat tip to "Patriot Post") some 5 days a week both here and on FB-- so that over time people get a sense of the depth and wisdom of the American Creed.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on May 31, 2014, 08:27:04 AM
"The Americana Creed is a magnificent one.  It does poorly now because we have not taught it."

That is certainly part of it.   The educators today at least at the University level spend too much time making us ashamed than proud as it was when I grew up.

I recall my sixth grade teacher.   He pointed out a famous picture in our history book showing the two trains connecting from the East and West Coasts and people sitting on the trains waving bouquets of flowers.   Celebrating the first complete trans America railroad.   He told us something I didn't know or realize.  He said this picture is a drawing from a real photograph.    Well one can google the real photo.  The people are not waving flowers.  They are waving whiskey bottles.  I recall he was irritated about the dishonesty in our textbooks.  

I later found out he was gay.  So I suppose he had an emotional axe to grind so to speak.  That said he was without a doubt the very best grade school teacher I ever had.  He taught us things I still vividly remember today.  Architecture, Civil War history, Russian Revolution history, and more.   I think I saw him once back in the early eighties at a Fourth of July fireworks.  I wish I had gone up to him to verify it was him so I could tell him he was the best teacher of my life.   I am sure that would have meant something for him.  My sister is a teacher and I've seen previous students and parents of students of hers do that.   I know she feels great.

Any way I am going way off topic.

Back to the bigger less personal topic at hand.  Yes children growing up being taught to hate America is a travesty.  Especially from a population of people whose alternative is total totaliarism.    But that is only part of it.   There is still other causes like bribing voters with other peoples' monies, people coming in from countries who do not believe in capitalism, and are quite happy to have endless benefits.  

The racial and gender divides......

Look at the Pope from Argentina.   Look at the liberal Jews who descended from fascist, socialist Europe.   Their warped answers to everything is a bigger and more powerful state.  These people have no clue what the founders understood.  Indeed they now admonish our founders as just a bunch of rich white Christain men....... :cry:
Title: Was Hillary Clinton a good secretary of state?
Post by: DougMacG on June 01, 2014, 08:55:21 AM
Walter Russell Mead puts her service in pretty good balance though I think misses some of the main criticisms.

Was Hillary Clinton a good secretary of state?

By Walter Russell Mead, Published: May 30
Walter Russell Mead is the James Clarke Chace professor of foreign affairs at Bard College and editor at large of the American Interest. He is the author of “Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.”
For some realists, “global meliorism” — the belief that U.S. foreign policy can and should try to make a better world — is a dirty word. For Clinton, it is a bedrock conviction. “We are the force for progress, prosperity and peace,” she said during a remarkable speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in early 2013.
These ambitious new ideas [focus on the rights of women and girls, and emphasis on Internet freedom and connectivity]— though not amounting to the Clinton “doctrine” foreign policy junkies hunger for — could come back to haunt us. The U.S. emphasis on human rights and democracy, as well as the active support for civil society organizations, contributed to China’s harsh response to the pivot to Asia and probably deepened Vladi­mir Putin’s view of the West as a danger to Russia. For Moscow and Beijing, Washington’s work to engage and strengthen democracy activists and movements represents an aggressive effort to undermine the Russian and Chinese regimes. And the push for changing gender relations allows Islamists to portray the United States as a threat to religious values. American opponents often fear ideological and cultural “aggression” as much as U.S. military power.
Historians will probably consider Clinton significantly more successful than run-of-the-mill secretaries of state such as James G. Blaine or the long-serving Cordell Hull, but don’t expect to see her on a pedestal with Dean Acheson or John Quincy Adams anytime soon.
Title: Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi attacks
Post by: DougMacG on June 01, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
On pins and needles I will wait for her big, exclusive, hard-hitting interview with Diane Sawyer.  Meanwhile a couple of questions I would pass forward:

1)  Tell us everything you said and did during the 8+ hours of the Benghazi crisis to try to persuade the President to use all available means to support and rescue your ambassador and the Americans that were left to die at the hands of terrorists attacking Americans and America in an act of war on September 11, 2012 in which Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered.

2)  Tell us everything you would have said and done at every juncture during that crisis to get help to the compound if the Ambassador's name or his assistant there was not Chris Steven but Chelsea Clinton.  Same answer as the first question, right?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 01, 2014, 03:28:11 PM
Mayb e add;

1)  Tell us exactly when you learned the video had NOTHING to do with the attack and why you still refuse to admit that.

2)  Tell us why you were blaming a video as an acceptable excuse to attack our embassy and kill 4 Americans and it was necessary to almost apologize to and excuse the actions of terrorists on behalf of our country.

3)  Why are you qualified to be President when you cannot be hones and level with Americans?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2014, 02:19:34 AM
Title: It's official
Post by: ccp on June 05, 2014, 06:31:47 AM
Cover of People. 


her marriage
grandmother status
sleeping in to 8 AM
so involved
time to break the highest glass ceiling
post more botox and a quarter inch of makeup
saving the elephants
getting to know her [again]
the real Hillary behind the scenes
and of course an "oh my gosh"
Title: Re: (Hillary) It's official
Post by: DougMacG on June 05, 2014, 08:18:24 AM
Cover of People.  


her marriage
grandmother status
sleeping in to 8 AM
so involved
time to break the highest glass ceiling
post more botox and a quarter inch of makeup
saving the elephants
getting to know her [again]
the real Hillary behind the scenes
and of course an "oh my gosh"

Yes - it appears to be on.  That's how you sell books.  This book is meaningless but the money beats working for a living.  The next book will be the blueprint for her Presidency if she is running.

The deadline for not running is coming up shortly - after the book revenue runs its course,  after the midterms in November, about the same time Hillary becomes a Grandma.  

The Oh my "Gosh" statement (more likely uttered with f-words) was that they couldn't believe they could just sit and watch TV, OMG!  That's the image on sale here, just Bill and Hill together snuggling up watching TV - like the walk on the beach after Monica.  I'm visualizing more of a living room war-room where both have staff bustling around, Bill's mostly young and busty, and Hillary with Huma and some focus group managers going over the Obamanomic plowhorse damage demographic by demographic, and the TV in the background

My cover all bases prediction was that she will not run, won't win the Dem nomination if she runs and won't win the Presidency if she runs and is nominated.  Looking wrong on all counts, but I stand by it.  

The 2016 table is getting set with Obama scandal and malaise fatigue along with recurring Hillary-fatigue, while the opposition is poised to sweep the 2014 elections and enter with fresh faces and fresh ideas for 2016.  She will need to separate herself from Obama, on the past and on policy, without pissing him off because she will need his complete cooperation to have a chance - of all his staff and his magical Get Out The Vote operation right while she is separating herself.  She needs to sound like him, hope and change, the first fill in a different blank President, the winning formula, and yet not sound like him or govern like him.  More like Pelosi, we need a woman to clean up the House, how is that going?  And she will need Bill disciplined on a short leash, mostly quiet, but ready to pull off his magic from time to time because she is a run of the mill politician without him.  Two for the price of one?  Again?  Meanwhile, aging and health issues are plaguing both of them.  The end of 8 years of a (hypothetic) Hillary administration is 34 years after the start of the 1992 campaign and 48 years after being 'elected' First Lady of Arkansas.  They were the new generation, full of excitement and promise.  Still true?  I don't think so.

Washington Post poll today, 55% say Obama made America weaker.  When George H.W.Bush followed two terms of Reagan, the implication was 'stay the course'.   Good luck with that in 2016!
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 05, 2014, 09:18:44 AM

"My cover all bases prediction was that she will not run, won't win the Dem nomination if she runs and won't win the Presidency if she runs and is nominated"

Well you do make three predictions here.

How are you so sure?

'Inside info' you can share here?

Title: Hillary Rodham Clinton for President, wisdom from failure
Post by: DougMacG on June 05, 2014, 10:52:47 AM
"My cover all bases prediction was that she will not run, won't win the Dem nomination if she runs and won't win the Presidency if she runs and is nominated"
Well you do make three predictions here.
How are you so sure?
'Inside info' you can share here?

Yes, there is some hedging there with the 3 predictions.   :wink:
I am only certain that she is not a great politician and this is not great timing for her to achieve her (disappearing) dream.  If Obama approval was at 60%, healthcare was roaring, the plowhorse was in a canter, and people were demanding more, she would be the gal.

On paper, to a Dem, she has a perfect resume.  Executive, Legislative, and Foreign Policy experience.  She was co-President during a rather successful administration.  She served in the US Senate.  She ws Secretary of State.  She is a woman.  And she leads in ALL polls!

But a resume is not a list of titles held.  It is the basis for a discussion about what you accomplished in the roles that you had.  Each of these is loaded with problems.  She wasn't really co-President.  The part they gave to her she bungled.  Her husband didn't grow the economy - until he partnered with a Republican congress.  Even before that he ran as a split with the politically failed left.  She won her Senate seat in the yellowest of yellow states. (Formerly called Blue)  And did it as a sitting First Lady, the easiest place to get an approval rating up.  She accomplished nothing positive in the Senate.  She has already run for President as certain frontrunner and people on her own side ran away from her. Her Sec of State record is loaded with ALL kinds of problems, and those WILL be scrutinized.  First female President would be more exciting if it was not right after first half-Black President. Also someone a little more feminine... ?!   But we are electing a President and policy direction, not a portrait.  Issues will be front and center, the economy and the dangerous world.  She can't perfectly triangulate a serious split with Obama while needing and securing all of his help.  At some point they will say F-U.  We don't even know that Bill won't undercut her too.  The age and health thing is real  in terms of energy (and look), if not real problems.  The rising crop of Republicans are in their early 40s.  The job of running all these functions of government is grueling.  She didn't even stay up for Benghazi.

She got popular by stepping away from the day to day issues.  She wins early polls with name recognition.  Her own publicists can't name her achievements other than holding high posts, traveling great distances and knowing many names.  The campaign is harder than that and more and more missteps will come up.  Example today, she favors the Taliban deal?!  Any chance she will shrink away from that in the next 2 years?  Not based on hard facts already known but based on public reaction that she TOTALLY misjudged.

As a Republican I would be far more afraid of another unknown Democratic outsider from across the heartland emerging with any charisma who can draw a distinction between themselves and the Democratic past.  (I see Hickenlooper leading in Colo again.)  Bill Clinton didn't come to the Presidency as a frontrunner.  He had no chance of the nomination until Mario Cuomo stepped out and they were left with something more like the 1988 seven dwarfs again.  Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey?

Mostly I have an optimism that America, including some core Dem constituency groups, will figure this out - eventually.  Without that blind and maybe stupid optimism it is hard to care or go on.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 05, 2014, 07:36:56 PM
You make a good argument.  My position one can never underestimate the Clinton machine.   No matter how unbelievably dishonest Bill would be, let alone her, they would always manage to weasel out of trouble still on their feet.   :-o

I would like to place some heavy duty wagers with you:

1)  If she doesn't run I buy dinner.  If she does I get a dinner.

2)  If she doesn't win the Democratic nomination I buy lunch.  If she does you buy  lunch.

3) If she wins the Presidency I get breakfast.   IF not you do.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on June 05, 2014, 09:56:02 PM
By the time of the next election, three meals in one day might be a luxury.  :|
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 06, 2014, 07:20:31 AM
You make a good argument.  My position one can never underestimate the Clinton machine.   No matter how unbelievably dishonest Bill would be, let alone her, they would always manage to weasel out of trouble still on their feet.   :-o

I would like to place some heavy duty wagers with you:
1)  If she doesn't run I buy dinner.  If she does I get a dinner.
2)  If she doesn't win the Democratic nomination I buy lunch.  If she does you buy  lunch.
3) If she wins the Presidency I get breakfast.   IF not you do.

Okay, you're on.  But if Hillary wins the Presidency, as GM alludes, we may be in the bunker eating the end of the canned food.  My treat!

At the end of this ordeal I hope we can close the thread while the Clintons ride off quietly off into the night never to be heard from again.

Don't stop, thinking about tomorrow, ...
Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 06, 2014, 08:40:40 PM
"the end of the canned food"


Even worse if it canned spam!

I admit I am in the awkward position of hoping I lose the bet.  :-D
Title: I wonder how much of this 250 million will mysteriously disappear
Post by: ccp on June 07, 2014, 06:38:52 AM
Clintons Hit $200 Million for Endowment Before 2016 Race
By Jonathan Allen and Annie Linskey  Jun 6, 2014 12:00 AM ET 

Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton raised $200 million in 10 months for their foundation’s endowment, positioning the nonprofit to survive even if its cash-collecting namesakes engage in a 2016 presidential run.

With four-fifths of their $250-million target in the bank, they are also changing fundraising strategies to include small donors -- a tactic that would create a list that could be politically useful, as well.

The Clintons’ initial appeals for foundation money were to contributors who could give $1 million or more. Those answering that call included Irish cell phone billionaire Denis O’Brien, and Bill Austin, owner of Minnesota’s Starkey Laboratories. Others were charities founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu -- the world’s second richest man -- and one run by Chicago venture capitalist J.B. Pritzker and his wife.

“As with many of the nation’s leading non-profit organizations, an endowment will provide the Clinton Foundation with the permanent capacity to support established and new programs and responsibly plan for the future,” Craig Minassian, the group’s chief communications officer, said in an e-mail.

The race to build an endowment is a sign that the foundation is maturing, that 67-year-old former President Bill Clinton won’t always be able to serve as its chief rainmaker, and that the time for Hillary Clinton, 66, to settle the question of her presidential ambitions is running out, said three people involved in the endowment project who asked for anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the fundraising effort.

The foundation’s officials are compiling a list of investment management firms to maintain the fund, and will soon put out a request for proposals, a foundation official familiar with the strategy said.

Establishing and funding the endowment now is important because a return by the Clintons to the political stage will also require a shift from generating cash for the foundation to financing the campaign, said those involved in the current fundraising drive.

That shift in status, from private to public life, also would mean the couple could be subject to conflict-of-interest charges if foundation donations are sought from those with interests before the federal government.

Avoiding Conflicts

Also, raising an endowment prior to a presidential run will ensure the foundation doesn’t starve a potential Clinton super-political action committee, said Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a Washington-based watchdog group. Super-PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money didn’t exist during Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“Historically, many of the people who could give to a Clinton Foundation would have maxed out to the Clinton campaign,” Holman said. “Now they can throw all that money at the candidate herself.”

U.S. law bans foreigners such as billionaires Slim and O’Brien from contributing to political campaigns, so a potential Clinton campaign wouldn’t be competing for their dollars.

During the 2008 presidential primary campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama tried unsuccessfully to pressure the Clinton Foundation to reveal its donors. As part of the deal struck for Hillary Clinton to join Obama’s administration as secretary of state, the foundation agreed to disclose its contributors.

Donor Disclosure

The backers of the endowment will be listed along with other supporters in annual public disclosures going forward, according to a foundation official.

At a minimum, the Clintons simply wouldn’t have the time to nurture the endowment or foundation in the midst of a presidential campaign. If she runs and wins, the foundation could be deprived of their fundraising prowess for a decade.

The fundraising drive will be a hot topic of hallway conversations today when top donors -- including some who wrote checks for the endowment -- gather at Goldman Sachs (GS) Group Inc. headquarters in Manhattan for the organization’s annual spring briefing on programs.

The Clintons’ urgency is evident in the speed at which they have been generating donations.

“Most small or medium foundations wouldn’t be able to raise that kind of money in a year,” said Reina Mukai, a research manager at the New York-based Foundation Center, which tracks philanthropy. “It’s fairly unique.”

Small-Donor Event

In September, the foundation will hold a $1,000-a-head reception at the Italian Embassy in Washington. For $25,000, a couple will be able to dine after the reception with Bill and Hillary Clinton at the Washington home they’ve kept. A check for $50,000 includes dinner and an invitation to the New York-based foundation’s next donor conference.

Bill Clinton, advised by longtime aide Doug Band, created the Clinton Foundation shortly after leaving the White House in 2001. In 2012, it took in $54.7 million in revenue and ended the year with $183.6 million in assets. Its endowment, though, was just $292,000.

In the past dozen years, the foundation sprouted 11 separate arms, from the Clinton Global Initiative to Hillary Clinton’s “Too Small To Fail” project, which was founded in 2013 to improve the health of children younger than 6 years old.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton runs for president, foundation officials said it makes sense to set up a mechanism for building the family’s legacy “in perpetuity.”

One Clinton confidant described a maturation process at the foundation that made an endowment a natural move.

Start-Up Tendencies

In its early years, this person said, the foundation was more like a start-up, trying to figure out how to make it each year. More recently, its officers have begun considering how to make sure it can endure for decades.

While the $250 million level may secure the operation of existing programs, it hardly puts the Clinton foundation in the same league as those with the names Ford, Gates or Rockefeller attached to them.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, reports having an endowment of $40.2 billion -- 160 times the size of the Clinton Foundation’s goal. At $32.7 billion, Harvard University ranks first on the list of major college endowments.

The Clinton goal compares more closely to the size of the endowment of former President Jimmy Carter’s Atlanta-based foundation, which reported having a $460 million endowment in 2011.

Foundation Turnaround

The success of the Clinton fundraising drive marks a turnaround for a foundation that, according to the New York Times, was rife with disorganization and incurred about $40 million in deficits in 2007 and 2008. Bill Clinton disputed the account.

Still, in 2011 the foundation contracted with the New York-based law firm Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP to audit finances and policies. Recommendations included: hold regular staff meetings, review expense reports, and adopt a gift acceptance policy “to ensure that all donors are properly vetted.”

In July, the Clintons reorganized its staff, removing Chief Executive Officer Bruce Lindsey from day-to-day management and installing Eric Braverman from McKinsey & Company in his place.

As the foundation announced those changes, Bill Clinton added a request. “We need an endowment,” Clinton said in Aug. 13 open letter posted on the foundation’s website “which our family and friends are working to raise.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Allen in Washington at; Annie Linskey in Washington at

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at Don Frederick
Title: Bret Stephens WSJ: Hillary Clinton's book invites us to forget her record
Post by: DougMacG on June 10, 2014, 09:38:22 PM
A diplomatic record she "came to regret"...

Hillary Clinton will likely be the next president of the United States, and why not? We live in an age of choreographed reality, and hers is among the most choreographed of lives. Also, an age of the triumph of symbol over substance and narrative over fact; an age that demonstrates the power of the contention that truth matters only to the extent people want it to matter. Mrs. Clinton's career is testimony to these things as well.

Which brings me to the subject of her book.

I obtained an advance copy of "Hard Choices," her latest doorstop of a memoir, and started reading it before its publication Tuesday. There she is, bitterly regretting her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. There she is again, standing by her actions during the Benghazi debacle, insisting on the relevance of the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

Elsewhere we find her equivocating over her opposition to the Iraq surge (which, as we learned from Robert Gates's memoir "Duty," she privately admitted was purely political), or allowing that the Obama administration's decision to stand silent over the stolen 2009 Iranian revolution was something she "came to regret."

Addressing the Marketing Nation Summit in San Francisco, April 8. ASSOCIATED PRESS
And so on. But to go point-by-point through the prose would be to miss the book's true purpose. Like Victorian children who were supposed to be seen but not heard, this is a book that is supposed to be bought but not read, discussed but not examined, excerpted but not critiqued.

In fact, it's not really a book at all. It is an artifact containing printed words, an event conveying political seriousness. Perhaps it could have been written at half its length (635 pages) with twice the interest. But that would have made it easier to read from start to finish, defeating its own purpose of being big and therefore, presumably, weighty. Ceci n'est pas une pipe, wrote (or painted) René Magritte. Just so with "Hard Choices": Ceci n'est pas un livre.

How then, are we supposed to understand the memoir?

Surely it isn't about the money. Her publishers at Simon & Schuster are reported to have paid a $14 million advance for "Hard Choices," a nice raise from the $8 million she got for her first memoir, "Living History." After taxes and ghostwriting expenses (in the acknowledgments, Mrs. Clinton credits her "book team" for "making sense of my scribbles") the fee isn't so eye-popping.

Surely it isn't about the story, either. Dean Acheson, Harry Truman's secretary of state, told the riveting tale of how the Cold War began—and how the U.S. organized itself to fight it—in "Present at the Creation." George Shultz told the inside story of how the Reagan administration won the Cold War in "Turmoil and Triumph." Probably the best of the diplomatic genre, at least from a literary point of view, are the first two volumes of Henry Kissinger's memoirs, "White House Years" and "Years of Upheaval."

These books are important not (or not merely) as personal testimonies or historical documents. They describe the complex process by which a diplomat pursues great aims under the concrete pressure of events using the cumbersome mechanisms of government. They are arguments for policy and manuals for statesmanship.

Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, doesn't really have a story to tell: Her book is an assemblage of anecdotes, organized geographically, held together by no overarching theme, or underlying analysis, or ultimate accomplishment. In April she was asked to name her proudest achievements as secretary. She fumbled for an answer, as well she might. There are none.

Nor, finally, is it about the argument. What is Mrs. Clinton's version of Acheson's containment, or Mr. Kissinger's triangular diplomacy, or Mr. Shultz's muscular idealism? Perhaps it's what she used to call "smart power," a phrase that is more of an intellectual conceit than a foreign-policy concept. Calling your diplomacy smart doesn't make it smart. Saying isn't showing. And showing off isn't doing.

Which brings me back to the real purpose of the book.

However one feels about Mrs. Clinton, she was the least consequential secretary of state since William Rogers warmed the seat in the early years of the Nixon administration. This is mainly the fault of the president for whom Mrs. Clinton worked, and of the White House hacks who had the larger hand in setting the tone and shape of foreign policy. Most everyone knows this, and most everyone doesn't want to admit it. So in place of a record we have a book.

Then again, Mrs. Clinton has, prospectively, the most consequential future of any secretary since James Buchanan (the last of her predecessors to become president). How does she secure her ambition?

There is a Platonic dialogue, the "Phaedrus," which observes that the surest way to forget is to write it down. Preferably in minute detail, at extravagant length. If there's a book you can consult, no need to remember it for yourself. "You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding," warns Socrates, "and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom."

Mrs. Clinton has produced a book that asks us to forget her tenure as secretary of state. It's going to be a blockbuster.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 11, 2014, 05:23:10 AM
"Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, doesn't really have a story to tell: Her book is an assemblage of anecdotes, organized geographically, held together by no overarching theme, or underlying analysis, or ultimate accomplishment. In April she was asked to name her proudest achievements as secretary"

This is the story of her entire life not just as Sec of State.   Her whole persona has been one of a defiant hippy in search of something to rebel against.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary gaffes
Post by: DougMacG on June 11, 2014, 08:17:38 AM
We charge $100 million in speaking fees because we "struggled".  She worked two jobs (total) in college, you know, and Bill grew up poor.

"We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt," Clinton told ABC's Diane Sawyer for an interview that previewed the Tuesday launch of Clinton's memoir, "Hard Choices."

They were dead broke because of legal costs of the 'hard choices' made by her husband.

Clinton recalled how she "struggled" to purchase "houses".

The friend who 'helped" the "struggling" family with an extra 1.35 million out of the goodness of his heart for one of their houses is now Governor of Virginia.

And this woman will win, unchallenged, in a national mood of anti-government, anti-cronyism, anti-Obamacare, anti-Washington, anti-big money, anti-Wall Street?  I don't see it.
Title: Diane Sawyer Destroys Hillary Clinton on Benghazi
Post by: DougMacG on June 11, 2014, 09:03:41 AM
Painful to watch.

Title: A sordid chapter, revisited
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 11, 2014, 07:04:14 PM
Title: Hillbillary: Not ready for prime time, Senator Lincoln?
Post by: DougMacG on June 11, 2014, 09:53:10 PM
Flowers is only alleging that Bill, a known cheater and liar, told her, not that she had any personal, direct knowledge.

Referring back when they "struggled" with money, were "dead broke", and had to charge such inordinate speaking fees because Bill grew up poor.  But why didn't she buy a Wall Street Journal subscription - again - and put a couple dollars down on commodities futures?  It worked last time.  Or was she lying then?

Gaffes continued:  “I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”

Ummm, Abraham Lincoln was never a Senator.  This is not an off the cuff mis-speak but a carefully thought out analogy - that happens to be wrong.  I wonder how much money they made renting out the Lincoln bedroom without ever knowing what the guy did for a living.

News Reports confirm what I alleged last week:  "Fact Check: Hillary came up with Benghazi video explanation"

Hillary Clinton’s newly released memoir leaves little doubt she was the first member of the Obama administration to publicly link an anti-Islam video to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack – though she does not explain what intelligence she relied on to make the faulty connection.

The former secretary of State and potential Democratic presidential candidate discussed the Benghazi attack in her memoir “Hard Choices.” The 33-page Benghazi chapter sheds some light on events, but it leaves plenty of inconvenient details out.

According to the chronology she offers, Clinton issued the statement linking Benghazi to the video before she called President Obama on the night of the attack to provide an update, suggesting she was the originator of the flawed explanation.

The State Department press release, issued in her name, on Sept. 11, 2012 at 10:07 p.m., tied the death of Foreign Service officer Sean Smith to the video. Later that evening, a mortar strike killed former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, permanently maimed another CIA contractor and severely injured diplomatic security agent David Ubben – all of whom were defending the CIA annex. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens also died in the Benghazi assault.

The accuracy of the mortar attack, three out of five rounds on target, from more than a half mile away in the dark of night in under a minute, required military training, and premeditation according to multiple military and intelligence professionals.

“As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss,”Clinton’s press release said. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

In her book, Clinton makes passing reference to the Sept. 11 press release, and the former secretary of state offers this argument for citing the video:that violence was erupting all over the Middle East and the obscure Internet video was to blame, throwing Benghazi, without credible intelligence reporting, into the same category.

“[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too,"Clinton wrote. "That's just common sense."

What else does she know that isn't true?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 12, 2014, 08:17:18 AM
Update on Hillary running or not and my bet with ccp:

There is no doubt she is acting like a candidate with the release and promotion of this book.  This is a full blown trial balloon, if not the kickoff.

There is no doubt she HATED the tough questions from Diane Sawyer.  How dare her ask that!

There is no doubt she lacks the political magic and skill of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  She also exhibited NO CONCEPT of the idea of managing people.  The only way she could think of to have done more to protect the facility in Benghazi would be to have taken courses in analyzing blueprints!

But there is still plenty of doubt as to whether or not she knows she is a lousy candidate and that this will end again in failure.  No one hired by her campaign is going to tell her that and her husband isn't going to do it.  He probably can't duck fast enough anymore when she throws the lamp at him.

What happens when we see and hear more of Hillary:
"Hillary Clinton favorability rating keeps falling, poll shows"  (Who knew that would happen?)

This is before news of her gaffes starts to spread.
The 18-time Most Admired Woman was at her lowest of the last 12 years when running for President.
The Presidential table was set for her far better in 2008 than it is in 2016.  Bush finally leaving instead of Obama finally leaving.

Here is your choice Hillary: Go out on top as the most admired woman, or forever be known as a loser.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 12, 2014, 08:27:19 AM

Her whole life has built up to this moment.  She is a shoo-in for the Dem nomination and the Rep field is strikingly weak.  She has the vast left wing conspiracy of the Pravdas on her side.

She will run.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 12, 2014, 09:17:31 AM
Her whole life has built up to this moment.  She is a shoo-in for the Dem nomination and the Rep field is strikingly weak.  She has the vast left wing conspiracy of the Pravdas on her side.

She will run.

Some smart people agree with you:

Based on trading:  Hillary is more than a 3:1 favorite for the Democratic nomination.

the contours of the presidential race are now clear. On the Democratic side, the nomination is still Hillary Clinton's to lose.

Clinton begins the long campaign as the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination, according to a nationwide Washington Post-ABC News poll

Hillary Clinton, Giuliani Early Favorites  A look at the next presidential election

Hillary Clinton is favorite of Democrats

Majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president

Hillary Clinton Easily Paces Democratic Field
Two-thirds of Americans rate her as a strong leader

Can She Be Stopped?: Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States

Whoops, that was all about 2008, before she began to campaign.  To be fair, she did run that year.

Did anyone get it right - early in that race?

Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 12:51:04 AM »
It's so far off, it's hard to say how it'll all unfold, but I will say that Obama is the front runner for the nomination, if not the presidency.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 12, 2014, 10:47:16 AM
"The Presidential table was set for her far better in 2008 than it is in 2016.  Bush finally leaving instead of Obama finally leaving."

I agree with statement.  She is already preparing to distance herself as the tough moderate.  As one who can reach across the aisle ("like her husband did", if you believe the rewriting of history).

The support she has of the left, who have no better candidate so far, is unbelievable.   A small portion of it is ideology, such as the girly movement, but most seems to me to be from those who hope to profit handsomely from her Presidency.   

Title: When lapdogs attack!
Post by: G M on June 12, 2014, 03:23:57 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 12, 2014, 07:47:27 PM
It is always a pleasure to see Hillary squirm about her lying.

Yet, sadly half the country could care less about lying with the ubiquitous come back,
"they all do it".  Ever point out her lying to a lib.  When boxed in with logic this is ALWAYS the comeback.

In my view lying should automatically cancel one out for any public office.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 13, 2014, 08:06:19 AM
It is always a pleasure to see Hillary squirm about her lying.

Yet, sadly half the country could care less about lying with the ubiquitous come back,
"they all do it".  Ever point out her lying to a lib.  When boxed in with logic this is ALWAYS the comeback.

In my view lying should automatically cancel one out for any public office.

I didn't listen to the exchange but lying was only one of the character defects exposed.  Maybe people will get tired of the lying or maybe it is something else about her that will end this charade.  Her temper, her arrogance, her record of failure, her lack of people skills, lack of professional management skills, and especially her inability to admit she is wrong -  all come to mind.

Most importantly, whether the name is Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, whether it is the first half-black or the first woman President,  people should be tired of having their country led in the wrong direction.  People are being lied to everytime they hear that these policies bring economic recovery, prosperity, world peace or a strong America.   After trying these policies, everyone should now recognize failure.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2014, 08:33:41 AM
That will require someone else making a better and clearer case.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 13, 2014, 08:51:24 AM
That will require someone else making a better and clearer case.

Yes it does!

(previously) " the Rep field is strikingly weak"

Doesn't that always appear to be the case before a real leader emerges?  It is darkest before sunrise?  I would say instead that the Republican field is strikingly wide and deep.  Each looks small right now, some with no foreign policy experience, like Reagan, some with no executive experience, like Lincoln, but we need one person to rise to a level of greatness in leadership that we haven't seen in a long time.  It is easy to be pessimistic after a long stretch of weak and flawed candidates, but if there is not one person left in this country who can connect with energy and emotion to the ideas of freedom and strength, then we deserve the demise that is otherwise coming.
Title: Hillbillary Clintons can relate to Middle class? Hillary issinking like a stone.
Post by: DougMacG on June 13, 2014, 03:42:15 PM
Chelsea Clinton received a whopping $600,000 annual salary from NBC for her (almost negligible) work there.

They are just like us, student debt, etc.  How much does your kid make for doing "almost negligible work"?

Hillary is sinking like a stone.  (Who knew?)  It's almost too late for her to step out gracefully while she is still on top:
Clinton’s Popularity Drops to 52% as 2016 Edge Shrinks
Hillary Clinton’s popularity continues to slide as she takes on a more political posture and Republicans raise questions about the deadly 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya on her watch.
Fifty-two percent of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, down from 56 percent in March and 70 percent in December 2012, according to the Bloomberg National Poll.
The decline means Clinton wouldn’t enter a possible 2016 race as a prohibitive favorite over key Republican rivals. While she still bests them in head-to-head matchups, she doesn’t have majority support against any of them.

She doesn't have very much further to fall to be under 50% favorable, down from 18 time most admired woman.

After Hickenlooper wins reelection in Nov, I wouldn't expect HRC to be Dem front runner for very long.   :wink:

Title: Hillary the brainwashed warmonger
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 13, 2014, 11:02:38 PM
Title: Morris: How Obama beat Hillary in 2008
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2014, 11:21:33 AM 
Title: 1975: Hillary the public defender of rapist of 12 year old girl.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2014, 02:05:49 PM 
Title: Head of Real Clear Politics: 5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run
Post by: DougMacG on June 17, 2014, 06:18:34 AM
Famous people reading the forum?  The number of people in the world who now believe Hillary Won't Run has doubled to two!  (It was getting lonely over here.)

5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run
By Tom Bevan - June 17, 2014

Hillary Clinton's minions are hard at work assembling a political machine and fine tuning it for another go at the White House. Mrs. Clinton is doing her part preparing for a run as well, churning out a bland memoir about the "hard choices" she faced as secretary of state and coyly positioning herself (again) as the inevitable nominee of the party. But after the troubled beginning to her book tour, we're beginning to see the reasons why Hillary may eventually decide to pull the plug on a 2016 presidential run. Here are five:

1) She's just not that good at campaigning. If the last two gaffe-prone weeks have reminded us of anything about Hillary, it’s that she’s a mediocre politician at best. Her shortcomings are significant: she can be stiff and wooden in public; she lacks the aura of a natural politician; she’s not a great public speaker, and she can come across as politically flat-footed and tone deaf -- as she did with her “dead broke” response to a rather benign question about relating to the financial challenges of the average voter. People still seem to believe that the Clinton name is synonymous with political skill, but that assumption is only half-true: If Hillary possessed even half of Bill’s political talent and acumen, she wouldn’t have lost to Barack Obama in 2008.

2) The “fire in the belly”question. Certainly, Mrs. Clinton shares her husband’s seemingly limitless ambition. It’s been the driving force behind their existence as individuals and as a couple for more than four decades. But I’m with Mike McCurry on this one: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be 67 years old on October 26. Does she really want to spend her golden years working 16 hours a day shaking hands at high school gyms in Dubuque, Iowa, and rubbing elbows at diners in Manchester, New Hampshire? Especially when she can burnish her legacy with meaningful work through the Clinton Global Foundation -- while making millions a year at $200,000 a pop for 45-minute speeches -- and spend time with her soon-to-be born grandchild.

3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation. HRC must have been taken aback last week when two members of the traveling sisterhood – Diane Sawyer of ABC News and Terry Gross of NPR – actually pressed her with uncomfortable questions about Benghazi and gay marriage, respectively. Hillary didn’t respond well in either situation, and the ensuing coverage was instructive. If she can’t count on favorable press coverage during the choreographed rollout of a self-reverential memoir, what does that tell us about how she’d do in debates against a determined opponent? And does Clinton really want to face the scrutiny, not to mention the slings and arrows, that come with any campaign?

4) Obama is leaving a mess. President Obama’s second term is complicating matters significantly for Hillary. His foreign policy, which Clinton helped direct for four years – is adrift. The situation has unraveled dangerously in Syria and now Iraq. The infamous “reset” with Russia is a joke. Obama’s job approval rating is on the slide, and not only on foreign policy. He’s struggling to stay relevant in Washington or to move any sort of domestic agenda forward, which will be made even more difficult if Republicans take the Senate in November. It’s hard to see how any of these dynamics change for the better in the next two years -- and they may get worse. Hillary will not want to be seen as running for Obama’s third term, yet she won’t be able to distance herself too far from his record. That will be a tough needle to thread politically (see point #1).

5) The country wants real change. America was mesmerized by Obama’s call for change in 2008. It was one of the narratives that propelled him over Hillary in the first place. Eight years later, Obama has failed to deliver much of what he promised on uniting the country and changing business as usual in Washington. As a result an even stronger populist, anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fervor is coursing through the electorate. That does not bode well for Hillary Clinton, who embodies the elite establishment -- and the past. If the famed Clinton political acumen still exists in that family, Hillary will figure this out and take a pass on 2016.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics
Title: Hillary Gaffes are going to need their own thread - Keystone Pipeline
Post by: DougMacG on June 17, 2014, 06:32:29 AM
Hillary went to Canada, took questions and has no opinion on Keystone Pipeline!

Let's see.  It's our closest ally.  It's their biggest product.  We are their biggest customer.  It is the safest way by far to ship the stuff.  It is a State Department issue.  And she doesn't have an opinion.

Do you believe that?  I don't believe that.

Of course we should build the pipeline.  (Unless she is a NAFTA supporter who opposes cross-border trade.)
But if and when she says that:
a) She loses support from her wacky base.
b) Her approval numbers go down further
c) She guarantees herself a challenge from the left.

So...  The whole charade is more popular, more profitable, more successful and more fun if she does NOT run or make "Hard Choices".
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on June 17, 2014, 07:44:37 AM
I'm thinking Doug has nailed it.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 17, 2014, 08:58:07 AM
From his lips to God's ears!

But I think her ambition and vanity will win out.  Imagine the tsunami of flattery that will come her way if she decides not to run!  Without her, the Dems have NO ONE.  She will use that tsunami to humbly submit to the people's will, the aspirations of women everywhere, blah blah.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 17, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
I'm thinking Doug has nailed it. 

Bringing this forward:

Did anyone get it right last time, this early in that race?

Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 12:51:04 AM »
It's so far off, it's hard to say how it'll all unfold, but I will say that Obama is the front runner for the nomination, if not the presidency.

Understood that it is a long shot that a front runner won't run and she most certainly is playing the part of candidate running right now.

Everyone wants their portrait to hang in the halls of glory as President of the United States.  Surely no one on her staff is telling her she is a lousy candidate, lousy campaigner, lousy manage and lousy person.

The job itself is very hard.  We need someone who wants to DO THE JOB, which is to lead the greatest nation in the world.  Current occupant wanted to be President, like the title loves the perks, but does not want to do the job:
Middle East burns while Barack Obama played his 175th and 176th (18 hole) rounds of golf as president.

Couple hundred thousand per speech, or get questioned about Keystone, Benghazi, ISIS, Crimea.

Crafty: "Without her, the Dems have NO ONE."

(They have NO One with her! )  In 1992, the Dems had no one, if Mario Cuomo did not run.  Just a few small fish out there, the Governor of Arkansas, etc.  The Dems had no one in 2012 (a failed incumbent) and still won.

In the last 2 weeks, every half-prominent Dem is asking themselves, is this my time, especially if she suddenly announces herself out.  She can't drop out until book sales peter out.   Whoops, maybe now:

April 19, 2007
Huge Increase in Hillary's Negatives Changing Presidential Race
There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.
According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don't like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.
Hillary isn't wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.
In February, Hillary had a 19 point lead over Obama. He is now only 5 points behind her.

Title: WSJ: Law required Hillary to be personally responsible for security decisions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 18, 2014, 02:48:45 PM
Doesn't Hillary Clinton Know the Law?
She says she didn't make security decisions on Benghazi. But that's the secretary of state's job.
By Victoria Toensing
June 17, 2014 7:22 p.m. ET

In her interview with ABC's ABCA.FR -0.19% Diane Sawyer last week, Hillary Clinton said "I was not making security decisions" about Benghazi, claiming "it would be a mistake" for "a secretary of state" to "go through all 270 posts" and "decide what should be done." And at a January 2013 Senate hearing, Mrs. Clinton said that security requests "did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them."

Does the former secretary of state not know the law? By statute, she was required to make specific security decisions for defenseless consulates like Benghazi, and was not permitted to delegate them to anyone else.

The Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or Secca, was passed in response to the near-simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. Over 220 people were killed, including 12 Americans. Thousands were injured.

Bill Clinton was president. Patrick Kennedy, now the undersecretary of state for management, was then acting assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Susan Rice, now the national security adviser, was then assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

As with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, an Accountability Review Board was convened for each bombing. Their reports, in January 1999, called attention to "two interconnected issues: 1) the inadequacy of resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and 2) the relative low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. government."

Just as U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens did in 2012, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell, had made repeated requests for security upgrades in 1997 and 1998. All were denied.

Because the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been existing office structures, neither met the State Department's security standard for a minimum 100 foot setback zone. A "general exception" was made. The two review boards faulted the fact that "no one person or office is accountable for decisions on security policies, procedures and resources."

To ensure accountability in the future, the review boards recommended "[f]irst and foremost, the Secretary . . . should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad" and "should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official premises." And for new embassy buildings abroad, "all U.S. government agencies, with rare exceptions, should be located in the same compound."

Congress quickly agreed and passed Secca, a law implementing these (and other) recommendations. It mandated that the secretary of state make a personal security waiver under two circumstances: when the facility could not house all the personnel in one place and when there was not a 100-foot setback. The law also required that the secretary "may not delegate" the waiver decision.

Benghazi did not house all U.S. personnel in one building. There was the consulate and an annex, one of the two situations requiring a non-delegable security waiver by the secretary of state.

In October 2012 the Benghazi Accountability Review Board convened, co-chaired by Amb. Thomas Pickering (Ms. Rice's supervisor in 1998) and Adm. Michael Mullen. It failed even to question Mrs. Clinton for its report about the attacks. It also obfuscated the issue of her personal responsibility for key security decisions by using a word other than "waiver," the passive voice, and no names. Recognizing that the Benghazi consulate (like the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies) was a previously nongovernmental building, the Benghazi review board reported that this "resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted [my emphasis] from office facility standards and accountability under" Secca. No Hillary fingerprints revealed there.

Mrs. Clinton either personally waived these security provisions as required by law or she violated the law by delegating the waiver to someone else. If it was the latter, she shirked the responsibility she now disclaims: to be personally knowledgeable about and responsible for the security in a consulate as vulnerable as Benghazi.

Ms. Toensing was chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.
Title: National Journal, Peter Beinart: A UNIFIED THEORY OF HILLARY
Post by: DougMacG on June 19, 2014, 11:31:23 AM
More disciplined than Bill Clinton, more hands-on than Barack Obama, this article goes through her strengths and weaknesses as a candidate and policy maker with serious analysis.

Lacking the author's same interest in balance, I pick out this: 
The so-called smartest woman in the world started her law career by failing the Washington DC Bar Exam in 1973.  2/3rds of the test takers that year passed the exam.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 22, 2014, 10:26:00 AM
The Economist has an article this week on how Hildabeasts book is basically a talking points directive to her mafia army to hit the airwaves with.   Who would ever have guessed?

And of course we are seeing the other obvious and totally predictable moves to separate herself from Brock.   The Benghazi deception was of course, not her idea.  She was serving the President.   Of course we can count her as being in agreement with Obama on every point he polls well on (probably few), and in disagreement (from day one) on every thing he polls poorly on.  Setting the illusion that she is not him, would not govern like him, and of course would be much "smarter" and effective.

I am glad her book is selling very poorly.  Perhaps there is hope that the Clintons cannot simply bribe their way to another top job in the world.   Like we were dead broke and Bill and I struggled to find the money for houses and college tuition. :roll: :wink: :-P
Title: Hillbillary Care would have eliliminated private health care
Post by: DougMacG on June 23, 2014, 01:56:23 PM
Above was told to me yesterday by a VA doctor.This was rejected once by a national referendum.

Title: Re: 1975: Hillary the public defender of rapist of 12 year old girl.
Post by: DougMacG on June 24, 2014, 06:16:48 AM 

And the story was not that had to defend evil as part of her chosen profession, but laughed about his guilt.  She violated his right to attorney client privilege, not just our sense of decency.

Does anyone think a tea party Senate candidate could get away with this?
Title: "There's only one political genius in the Clinton family and he isn't running."
Post by: DougMacG on June 24, 2014, 06:29:44 AM

Tone deaf material from Chelsea as well as Hillary at the link.  He concludes with:

"Here is a prediction: I have no idea who will be elected president in 2016, but it won’t be Hillary Clinton."

Breakfast in America!
Title: WSJ Dorothy Rabinowitz: Hillary as President
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 24, 2014, 10:31:54 AM
A Glimpse of Hillary as President
It is hard to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining, as Mrs. Clinton did, that 'it was all about my hair.'

Dorothy Rabinowitz
June 23, 2014 6:50 p.m. ET

The past few weeks of Hillary Clinton's book tour have given Americans more than a modest whiff of what a future Clinton presidency would bring. Nothing has brought home with more immediacy the role we can expect gender to play in that administration—or more to the point, the focus on anti-women bias about which we would evidently be fated to hear a great deal.

That would come as a change, after what will by then have been eight years of a different ruling focus in the White House—that being, of course, the president's race. Years in which Obama administration staff members, congressional allies and advocates in the political culture regularly nurtured the view—when they weren't making outright accusations—that vociferous opposition to this president, and his policies, was largely fueled by white racism. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) just last month declared that opposition to ObamaCare came from people who don't like the president "because maybe he's the wrong color."

Attorney General Eric Holder in turn delivered himself of bitter complaints to Al Sharpton's National Action Network in April about the lack of respect accorded him by a House committee. "What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?" Barack Obama had barely taken office, which he could not have won without the vote of white America, when his attorney general charged that the American people were "a nation of cowards" in their dealings with race. Mr. Holder would go on to attack states attempting to curtail voter fraud, to refuse prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party who had menaced white voters at a Philadelphia polling place, and to become, in all, the most racially polarizing attorney general in the nation's history.
Enlarge Image

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a public appearance at the Long Center in Austin, Texas, June 20. Getty Images

A Hillary Clinton administration would bring change, yes, but much about the change would feel familiar. We were given a small foretaste last week in a statement by Lanny Davis, former special counsel to Bill Clinton and indefatigable Hillary supporter. Mr. Davis had taken offense at the press description of Mrs. Clinton's performance on a National Public Radio program—one that had not gone smoothly for her. He was offended at certain language that had been used to describe Mrs. Clinton's reactions when the NPR interviewer questioned the consistency of her support for gay marriage. Reporters had described her as "testy," "contentious" and "annoyed." Mr. Davis opined that "had it been a man, the words 'testy' and 'annoyed' would not have been used."

Mr. Davis's reflexive discovery of insult to Mrs. Clinton—to women—in those words comes as no surprise. The idea that certain words are demeaning to women, because they're deemed unlikely to be used about men, is by now deep-rooted political faith. Many people were doubtless unaware, until Mr. Davis brought the odd news, that testy is a word not used for men—that hitherto standard descriptive words and phrases might now be subjected to close examination and be rendered illegitimate on the grounds of their potential offensiveness to women.

None of this would come as a shock to anyone with experience of the speech codes and all similar products of the ideological fervor on the nation's campuses today—institutions of learning where any text, any class reference, can be considered harassment or gender bias, should any student raise a claim of discomfort. That ideological fervor wasn't going to be confined to universities and colleges, and it hasn't been. Determining the words that may or may not be used to describe a woman candidate for the presidency is only its bare reflection—the beginning. We will be seeing that fervor full-blown should Mrs. Clinton win election to the White House.

In her conversation with Diane Sawyer on ABC, Mrs. Clinton herself recalled the unwelcome attention to her appearance during her travels as secretary of state. People mentioned her hair, the scrunchie she wore to keep it in place. Try as one may, it's impossible to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining to an interviewer, as Mrs. Clinton did, that "it was all about my hair."

There are other signs that the tone of a Hillary Clinton presidency would bear strong resemblance to that of Mr. Obama's. Under questioning during her recent media interviews, the former secretary of state deflected all challenging questions—when any were put—with her characteristic unyielding aplomb. Whether queried on al Qaeda's triumphant march to power despite the administration's long-continued assurances that al Qaeda was a spent force—or about disaster in Bashar Assad's Syria, or her own role in the Benghazi catastrophe in Libya—she exuded a serene assurance. And with it, the faintest hint of amazement that such queries should actually be put to her—a cheery puzzlement that anyone should think she had anything to do with what might have gone wrong.

"Let's talk about what was accomplished," she briskly instructed Diane Sawyer, who had asked about Syria and al Qaeda and Benghazi.

Mrs. Clinton could not at that moment have sounded more like the current resident of the White House. Or more like a future one who would be, much like her predecessor, a leader of boundless self-confidence. One also inclined, when presented with the evidence of catastrophic policies of her own making, to wonder what any of that had to do with her.
Title: Maher: Just go away for now
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2014, 12:56:56 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 28, 2014, 06:08:26 PM



Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 29, 2014, 08:45:25 AM
Given her silent tolerance of Bill's many affairs, the irony here is biting
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on June 29, 2014, 09:32:56 AM
Given her silent tolerance of Bill's many affairs, the irony here is biting

Is there any chance that she has not already called the IRS commissioner's boss to get this company stopped?

I wonder if Bill envisions only marital fidelity when he thinks about the title of her book.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on June 30, 2014, 05:46:15 AM
Only one poll but most people still find Hildabeast can still "relate" to the ordinary "folk" (you know the little people):

I wonder if the new book about the ongoing feud is just part of the strategy to separate Clinton from the Obamas.  The faux premise that she is much more moderate and can work with the other side.  We all know she is just as radical as Obama. 

Clinton only worked with the other side when his popularity sank and he got his tush handed to him in 1994.

Doug, I am not that expensive when it comes to dinner.  I hope I lose the lunch or at least the breakfast.  I don't mind paying for eggs benedict and champagne.  I would drink much myself if we could be finally rid of the two grifters.
Title: Re: The Hillbilleries - Champaign Breakfast )
Post by: DougMacG on July 01, 2014, 09:37:09 AM
Popularity falling with no one else running.
Approval below 50%.
Book sales disappoint.
Book tour a disaster.
She is not very good at politics.
Questionable fire in belly.
Doesn't want to clean up O' messes.
People want real change.
People don't want more Clinton Bush.

Wash Times, Wes Pruden, today

Not to mention age and health issues x 2.
Title: Billary and Goldman Sachs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 01, 2014, 01:30:59 PM
Title: Uniter indeed.
Post by: ccp on July 02, 2014, 06:52:17 PM
Let me ask the question.   How in the world can Hillary be even passed a "uniter" when every word out of her mouth pits one half of the country against the other half?   That is women against men!   She divides the electorate  and pits one group against another from the starting gates.
Title: Youtube, The Hillary Clinton Tapes
Post by: DougMacG on July 09, 2014, 07:20:54 AM
This is back in the news because the NY Times took a month to get to it:

Also because liberals are out trying to defend her on this:
Joan Walsh, Salon:  "I'm sure she would take that laughter back."    Ya think?

The laughter is real, she is laughing about the whole thing, getting him off on time served, ha ha, even though she believes he was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl and destroying the rest of her life, ha ha.  She was asked to take the case and took it.  She was confronted with the story; she brought it up in the interview - bragging about her past work!

While the laughter is real, the Arkansas accent is soooo phony.  She is from Chicago, lived later in Washington and got elected as Senator from New York.  Is this accent something you can turn on and off?  In her case, yes! More recently:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on July 09, 2014, 07:58:11 AM
Just another battle of the dem's war on women.
Title: Hil;ary's favorite charity-- herself
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 09, 2014, 04:42:30 PM
Hillary's Favorite Charity: Herself
Published on on July 9, 2014

After an uproar about the exorbitant college speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton -- $225,000 and up for each speech -- she suddenly announced that all of these fees "have been donated to the Clinton Foundation."

So in other words, she's donated the over-the top $1.8 million in fees to her favorite charity -- herself.  Is there really much difference between a fee paid directly to Hillary and one to the Bill Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation?  That's like moving money from one hand to the other.  It's not like Hillary's giving it away and losing control over it.  Because, without a doubt, she and her husband control the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation.  Is there anyone at all there who would ever say no to them?

No, they're calling the shots.

Hillary's generosity to the Foundation is a little different than other gifts.  Generally, when one makes a charitable contribution, it goes to an independent organization that spends it as it sees fit -- within the guidelines of the institution's goals.  Sometimes, a gift is earmarked for a certain project of the recipient. But that doesn't mean that the donor controls staff hiring, spending, and other expenses, such as travel and entertainment.

That's not the case at the Clinton Foundation, which is now the epicenter of Hillary's professional life and the launching pad for her likely presidential campaign.  In addition, the Foundation is one giant spoke in the many wheels of the Clintons' political and philanthropic fund-raising from overlapping donors.  The Foundation is a highly useful perch for Hillary.  She's installed her top former staff people and campaign aides on the foundation payroll, working on issues and scheduling her public speeches, recently estimated at hauling in $5 million since she left the State Department.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Clintons have raised between $2-3 billion in the past two decades, including $1 billion from American corporations.  The donations were to Bill and Hillary's political campaigns, various political advocacy organizations they support, the Clinton Presidential Library, and, of course, almost a billion dollars in contributions to the Foundation.

The Foundation provides other useful perks: It gives them the largesse to fund elaborate travel and parties for donor/friends, including one event where they reportedly purchased a first class plane ticket for Natalie Portman and her dog.  In 2012, the latest year available, the Foundation's travel expenses were $11,569,213 -- up about 10% from the $9,666,273 in 2011.  From 2000 - 2011, the Foundation spent over $50 million on travel!

Bill Clinton's travel alone was over a million dollars and accounted for more than 11% of the total.

And that didn't include the free travel that Bill and Hillary use most of the time, frequently asking for a donor to the Foundation for the free use of corporate jets, like supermarket billionaire John Catsimatidis, who frequently lends one of his fleet as an in-kind charitable contribution.

The Foundation also maintains the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, which includes a luxurious penthouse apartment for the exclusive use of Bill Clinton and family.  The apartment has rooms that are the exact replicas of the Oval Office, the State Dining Room, and the Oval Sitting Room.  It's where Bill frequently entertains -- on the Foundation.

That's not all.  The Foundation sponsors elaborate conferences and glamorous dinners that allow donors to hobnob with celebrities and rub elbows with Bill and Hillary.  Recently donors were invited to a week-end in London that included a musical and a special dinner with the Clintons.  All of this create a nice list of rich donors for a presidential candidate.

When Bill and Chelsea went to Africa for a week long trip in both 2012 and 2013, their entourage included VIP donors to The Foundation and a planeload of friendly journalists who dutifully reported gushing stories about the amazing Clintons.

It's a good way to develop a brand -- and its free!

The Foundation also spent over $26 million for meetings and conferences in 2011 and 2012.  Those, of course, are the perfect venue for Hillary to mingle with potential supporters and donors and showcase the policy positions and programs developed by the Foundation. And it gives the donors a chance to get chummy with a possible presidential candidate.

So it's a win-win situation for everyone.

Except for possible campaign opponents, who don't have the same ability and opportunity to raise billions of tax free dollars and leverage it to advance their campaigns.

So, when you're thinking about Hillary's generosity, remember where she's donating -- to herself!

But back to the student speaking fees.  Hillary, with her famous tin ear, actually claimed that the students at the University of Las Vegas who demanded that she return the $225,000 fee were not concerned about her fee!

Here's Hillary:

"They're not worried about my speaking or my household, they're worried about their own.  And that's the kind of debate I think I'm furthering as I go around the country speaking," she said of her critics."

Title: Hillary (not) under fire in Bosnia
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 10, 2014, 11:29:31 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2014, 08:09:41 AM
I saw Hillary making a politically astute move the other day.  She spoke in terms of being proud of America and that we have a great story to tell and that we just have to tell it.   Great way to appeal to every one who was offended by the Apology Tour and to subtly begin to separate herself from Obama's foreign policy.  Yes, yes I know it really was hers in great part and she stayed on board for it, but politically the theme looks to work well for her.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on July 19, 2014, 06:51:39 AM
"She spoke in terms of being proud of America and that we have a great story to tell and that we just have to tell it. "

And of course who better to tell it than her..... Sarcasm to the 10th degree!

I guess she has been listening to Glen Beck (the one of old), Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Marc Levin, Michael Savage, and many others on the right who have preached this throughout the progressive holocaust assault on America that has taken control of most of our media, Universities, unionized schools, and the entire Democrat party.

This is *classic* Clinton.  Steal the correct theme from the Right and act and promote it as though she discovered it and have her mafia organization now go all over the place promoting what they claim is her theme and the loving media will let her get away with it.  This is the classic Clinton way of infuriating us who know better.   (sadly it works for them)

The Right must NOT let her get away with this. ( However I know the Republican leadership does not have the savvy to do this)  She is a phony and a fraud.  All of us on this board know it.  Half the nation knows it.   Most on the left will always vote for her no matter what anyway.   Again it comes down to the minority who fall into the "some who can be fooled all of the time" (Lincoln of course).

Title: The Energizer
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2014, 02:46:31 PM
Title: Campaign slogans featuring Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience
Post by: DougMacG on July 27, 2014, 03:40:07 PM
"When smart diplomacy became a punchline."
Title: Re: Campaign slogans featuring Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience
Post by: G M on July 27, 2014, 06:57:24 PM
"When smart diplomacy became a punchline."

Perhaps they just need a reset button...
Title: Ah, 2012 and the bold insights into Russia from the dims
Post by: G M on July 31, 2014, 12:27:51 AM
Title: Charge: Clintons turned State Dept. into a racket
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 01, 2014, 11:30:03 PM

Bill and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire today after State Department documents showed that officials rubber-stamped the former president’s expansive and sometimes high-priced overseas speaking engagements while his wife was in charge of foreign policy with many of those nations.

“These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch and the Washington Examiner teamed to seek and publish those documents today.

“How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind,” said Fitton, adding, “That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage."

The Examiner reported that the former president gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while Hillary Clinton was at State.

The joint investigation also found Foggy Bottom didn’t object to a single proposed speech.

The duo’s income has become an issue in her burgeoning presidential campaign. They have a net worth of an estimated $80 million, with much of their bank account built on speech fees collected by Bill Clinton from venues around the world.

Said Judicial Watch:

    Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions — Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others — as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.

Editor's note: Judicial Watch is representing the Washington Examiner in the newspaper's federal lawsuit seeking access to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau records under FOIA.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at
Title: Hillary's Foreign Policy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 13, 2014, 05:40:26 AM
The Libs and Progs are going to have trouble with this , , , (see e.g. )

The Message From That Hillary Interview
She would be the best-prepared president on foreign policy since George H.W. Bush.
By William A. Galston
Aug. 12, 2014 6:57 p.m. ET

Jeffrey Goldberg's interview in the Atlantic magazine with Hillary Clinton has made headlines, with good reason. Her critique of President Obama's Syria policy was pointed and persuasive, as was her assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood's missteps in Egypt.

But what lay beneath the headlines is far more important. The interview revealed a public servant instructed but not chastened by experience, with a clear view of America's role in the world and of the means needed to play that role successfully. If she entered the race and won, she would be better prepared to deal with foreign policy and national defense than any president since George H.W. Bush, whose judgment and experience helped end the Cold War and reunify Germany without a shot being fired.

Although Mrs. Clinton's tart remark that " 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle" has evoked reams of commentary, the words that preceded it are far more important: "Great nations need organizing principles." The former secretary of state expressed enthusiasm for the role the U.S. played in defeating communism and fascism. The question since 1991 has been, what now?

During Bill Clinton's administration, the answer seemed clear enough: Build prosperity by incorporating the workers of Asia, Central Europe and the former Soviet Union into the global economy. The rising tide would create an expanding middle class, which would bolster new democracies and move authoritarian governments toward democracy. So the U.S. should take the lead in promoting open trade and peacefully advocating open government. The winds of history were in our sails.

Mrs. Clinton has thought hard about this, and here is what she told Mr. Goldberg: "The big mistake was thinking" that "the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space." She cites jihadi Islamism and Vladimir Putin's vision of restored Russian greatness as prime examples. She might well have added China's distinctive combination of political authoritarianism and pell-mell economic growth ("market-Leninism"), which is seen elsewhere as an orderly alternative to democratic messiness.

The rise of violently aggressive anti-democratic ideologies was one rebuttal of the end-of-history theory. Another was the global economic crisis, discrediting the so-called Washington consensus that had dominated world affairs since the early 1990s. Central bankers, it turned out, were not wise enough to eliminate financial panics. Although too much regulation could stifle growth, too little could open the door to reckless risk-taking.

George W. Bush's response to jihadi Islam—global democracy-building backed by American might—came to grief in the sands of Iraq. But a policy built on avoiding that failure, says Mrs. Clinton in the Atlantic, runs risks of its own: "Part of the challenge is that our government too often has a tendency to swing between these extremes" of intervention and non-intervention. She adds: "When you're down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you're not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward." If Mr. Bush's porridge was too hot, Mr. Obama's is too cold.

But moderation is a means to ends, not an end in itself. So what would be the ends, the animating purposes of Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy? Her interview suggests, first, that we must take the fight to jihadi Islamism, which is inherently expansionist. In that connection, she says, she is thinking a lot about "containment, deterrence, and defeat." When unarmed diplomacy cannot succeed, she adds, we should not be afraid to back "the hard men with guns."

Second, we should drive a tough deal with Iran, or none at all. "I've always been in the camp," Mrs. Clinton says, "that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich."

Third, we should distinguish clearly between groups we can work with and those we can't. For example, Mrs. Clinton would exclude Hamas on the grounds that it is virulently anti-Semitic and dedicated to Israel's destruction. She does not believe that Hamas "should in any way be treated as a legitimate interlocutor." Her commitment to Israel's defense is unswerving, including a willingness to call the rise of European anti-Semitism by its rightful name.

Fourth, the U.S. should vigorously advance the cause of women's rights around the world, not only because justice demands it, but also because the empowerment of women promotes economic growth and social progress.

And finally, because many American values "also happen to be universal values," we should take pride in ourselves and make our case to the world. Today, Mrs. Clinton says, "we don't even tell our story very well." As president, clearly, she would do her best to change that.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on August 13, 2014, 06:16:34 AM
"Mrs. Clinton has thought hard about this, and here is what she told Mr. Goldberg: "The big mistake was thinking" that "the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space." She cites jihadi Islamism and Vladimir Putin's vision of restored Russian greatness as prime examples"

Does anyone who has a brain and who is old enough to know better really believe she is some kind of great thinker?

She is spoon fed all this stuff by liberal professors and other foreign policy experts who are hanging on for windfall.

Yes while trouble is increasing around the world the left who gave Bamster a free ride now will switch gears as Rush pointed out recently and the focus will shift to Hillary.

The Narcissistic one (not Bill or Hillary) the other one, will get increasingly indignant and bitter now that he will slowly fade from the limelight of those who put him on the pedestal.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 13, 2014, 06:40:58 AM

As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone.  With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war.  Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!

Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us. 

Riddle me this:  How will the Reps respond to it?  More hawkish?  More Dovish?  How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it?  The American voter?  Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?

(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world?  This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)

Tangent:  I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on August 13, 2014, 06:53:11 AM
Bottom line, we are fcuked.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on August 19, 2014, 09:06:20 AM
As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone.  With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war.  Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!

Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us. 

Riddle me this:  How will the Reps respond to it?  More hawkish?  More Dovish?  How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it?  The American voter?  Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?

(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world?  This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)

Tangent:  I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,

She chose to serve BHO and carry out his vacuous foreign policy.  Now, assuming she's running, she needs to both distance herself from him - on foreign policy - while still getting 100% support from him and his staff, loyalists and band of campaign outlaws.  So she gave an interview ripping him, then immediately called him to "clarify".  Got ripped back badly by Axelrod, and still failed to distance herself.  (And WE are the ones screwed?)

Republicans will have the same heart wrenching debate over foreign policy that Americans are having with themselves.  Marco Rubio is hawkish. Rand Paul is dovish.  Mike Pence is busy exercising his executive experience.  This will play out.  The hawks need to demonstrate they aren't warmongers and the doves need to convince people they aren't pushovers.  The key will be to keep the debates positive and substantive.  In the end, we need to strengthen America from within and they all agree on that.

It is the Dems who can't run on abstractions.  They had their chance and they blew it.

Forgotten about Hillary Clinton's empty foreign policy experience is that her victorious rival named a special envoy to all the difficult areas, 24 in all, leaving her free to take unlimited trips to nowhere.
Obama administration’s 24 special envoys represent an unprecedented expansion of this mechanism
Title: Re: The Hillbillary candidacy
Post by: DougMacG on August 19, 2014, 09:24:02 AM
While it appears to all observers (including myself) that I am losing my bet that she won't run, won't win the nomination if she does run and won't win the Presidency if she does run, today a couple of articles today seem to show the tides may be turning:
Hillary Clinton's SUmmer Slide, Hillary is inevitable no longer
By Tom Keane,  Boston Globe Columnist   August 19, 2014
Clinton’s numbers have dropped by 10 or more points
(Not much new here except that someone besides us is saying it.)

Hillary Clinton Not Campaigning Much for her Party in 2014
By Michael Barone - August 19, 2014

Just about everyone noticed Hillary Clinton's scathing comments on President Obama's foreign policy in her interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.  But almost no one has noticed where Clinton hasn't been seen. That's on the campaign trail or at fundraisers for Democrats running for the Senate.

Why isn't she out campaigning for Democrats?
a)  This is going to be a lousy year for Dems.
b)  The candidates don't want her there.
c)  She isn't very good at campaigning.
d)  She doesn't like doing it.
e)  She doesn't want to face the difficult questions that come with being out there:

 Barone:  "That might force her to weigh in on Obamacare, illegal border crossings and fracking."

In other words, maybe she isn't running after all.   )

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on August 19, 2014, 09:31:31 AM
She is making serious money from her speaking events. Whoops! I mean the Clinton Foundation is making serious money from her speaking events.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 20, 2014, 07:37:37 AM
She does not need to be doing the rubber chicken circuit.  The nomination is hers for the asking.  The Dems have absolutely NO ONE to run if she does not.  Biden?  :lol: :lol: :lol:  Warren is not stupid but is not presidential in the slightest.  The outcry for her to run should she hesitate is such a sure thing that it would not surprise me that should would do a bit of a Hamlet should-I-shouln't-I routine to elicit it.

To top it off, it is not like the Rep offerings are looking all that daunting politically.

You think she'd be scared of Cruz?

As for Rand Paul, I remind everyone of the recent and current discussion of her Atlantic interview on the Foreign Affairs thread.   Anyone here bet on Rand Paul to win that exchange?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on August 20, 2014, 08:43:49 AM
I believe the point of stumping for others is to create loyalties and political indetedness .  I can think of only one scenario where she won't ever need that.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 20, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
With no opposition, she has need for neither.

My dad, who was a conservative Democrat businessman (such things did used to exist) was quite unhappy with McGovern in 1972 and wound up being Co-Chairman of Democrats for Nixon for the state of Pennsylvania. (He was on the City Committee for the Dem Party for Philadelphia and active in local politics).  In that context he got to meet with President Nixon (I have a photo of the two shaking hands at some function) and John Connally (former Gov of and Senator for TX, Sec of Treasury under Nixon and perhaps his campaign manager).  My dad said he was shocked at how little they cared about the other Rep candidates for other positions.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on August 20, 2014, 10:11:59 PM
 I love the personal story. It's hard to say what we can learn from Nixon. He was both a fool and a political genius. He won 49 states that year.

Hill doesn't just need loyalty, she is obsessed, with it. Something is amiss here IMHO.

What greater loss did O have than losing the House? And now the Senate.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on August 21, 2014, 05:30:56 AM
POTH tries to explain the unexplainable:

But if her election is already a certainty, why lose the Senate.  Those are 6 year terms!
Title: Hillary on Ferguson
Post by: DougMacG on August 25, 2014, 09:33:03 AM
Speaking of Cruz' view on foreign policy, what is HRC's view on Ferguson ? ? ?

Not ready for prime time.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 25, 2014, 09:39:10 AM
Well, my position is we should wait for the facts.  Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on August 25, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
Well, my position is we should wait for the facts.  Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.

I agree, but we are not in her targeted constituencies.  And I think she didn't say wait and see, she said run and hide.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on August 25, 2014, 11:39:24 AM
Silence to violence is not leadership.  Is the looting of private stores right?  Wrong?  Or check with our focus group guy.  Dearest leader Hillary says the latter.

In contrast, Dr. Carson said something about personal responsibility and can back it up with specific policies.
Title: Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob...
Post by: objectivist1 on August 29, 2014, 04:59:09 AM
Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob

Posted By Matthew Vadum On August 29, 2014

Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America’s corrupt criminal justice system.

It’s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.

Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America’s “first black president,” has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when she gave her infamous “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech.

The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president’s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown comes days after 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.

The former U.S. secretary of state embraces the politically correct lie that a helpless 6’4″ 292-lbs. Brown was shot in cold blood, arms raised while attempting to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, instead of the less convenient truth that Brown was trying to crush the decorated cop’s skull with his bare hands and reaching for the man’s handgun. Left-wingers like Clinton also prefer to ignore that fact that minutes before he attacked Wilson, Brown was captured on video bullying a much smaller East Indian shopkeeper during a robbery, an act that some might consider a hate crime. And the public is still waiting for Brown’s not-yet-released postmortem toxicology report.

The myth that Brown was a gentle giant won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama and his fellow radicals, won’t let it go. They need rampant racial tension and cop-hatred to persist in order to motivate their political base if Democrats are to have any hope of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate after the November congressional elections.

Clinton, the Benghazi bungler whose studied nonfeasance on Sept. 11, 2012, got four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, killed by Muslim terrorists, told a San Francisco audience:

“This summer, the eyes of our country and indeed the world have been focused on one community in the middle of the American heartland, Ferguson, Missouri. Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family, because losing a child is every parent’s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss.

But I also grieve for that community and for many like it across our country. Behind the dramatic, terrible pictures on television, are deep challenges that will be with them and with us long after the cameras move on. This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray. Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America. We are better than that.”

Although black violence is a persistent problem in America, Clinton, as always, has nothing to say about anything that might actually help black communities. They are always victims in the leftist narrative. She and her comrades have done everything in their power for the last half century since the War on Poverty was launched to weaken black families, yet they are always calling for more government programs and social engineering to cure the problems that they themselves have created.

Clinton spoke of the violence in Ferguson as if it had materialized in response to some kind of injustice, ignoring the role of what police called “outside agitators” played in driving the nightly street battles with police. She continued:

“We saw our country’s true character in the community leaders that came out to protest peacefully and worked to restrain violence. The young people who insisted on having their voices heard and in the many decent and respectful law enforcement officers who showed what quality law enforcement looks like. Men and women who serve and protect their communities with courage and professionalism, who inspire trust, rather than fear. We need more of that, because we can do better.”

Apart from her perfunctory praise of law enforcement officials and denunciation of violence, Clinton’s wording implies that Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Brown in self-defense, is not one of the “many decent and respectful law enforcement officers.” According to Clinton’s reasoning, Wilson must be a racist villain who is part of the problem.

Then Clinton began to sound like Barack Obama and other believers in the kooky legal philosophy known as Critical Race Theory, pretending that violent crimes in this country are not disproportionately committed by blacks. She ignores the fact that in some communities blacks receive heightened scrutiny from police because they seem to fit the profile of wanted suspects. If black crime were not prevalent in a specific area, chances are blacks would not receive much attention from police. But logic is not something left-wingers are often blessed with. They prefer to explain social ills by blaming white people.

Clinton continued:

“We can’t ignore the inequities that persist in our justice system that undermine our most deeply held values of fairness and equality. Imagine what we would feel and what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers. Instead of the other way around; if white offenders received prison sentences 10 percent longer than black offenders for the same crimes; if a third of all white men, just look at this room and take one-third, went to prison during their lifetime. Imagine that. That is the reality in the lives of so many of our fellow Americans and so many of the communities in which they live.”

Whether the specific statistics Clinton cites are valid is an arguable point, but what is not arguable is that violent black crime in America is far more prevalent that violent crime committed by whites. The statistics for young black males are particularly horrifying.

As liberal Democrat academic John McWhorter, a black American, wrote last year:

“[Y]oung black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. … Hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy’ (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch ‘for Trayvon’ (Mobile, Ala.) … t’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.”

But Hillary Clinton would never beat up a key political constituency. She’s too busy inflaming black voters, making them feel good about their dysfunctional communities, and reinforcing the worst pathologies of inner cities.

Of course Clinton is completely supportive of Eric Holder’s witch hunt in Ferguson, where Justice Department and FBI officials have been busy gathering evidence to use in what promises to be a high-profile trumped-up civil rights prosecution against Officer Wilson. Clinton said:

“I applaud President Obama for sending the attorney general to Ferguson and demanding a thorough and speedy investigation, to find out what happened, to see that justice is done, to help this community begin healing itself. We should all add our voices to those that have come together in recent days to work for peace, justice and reconciliation in Ferguson, and beyond, to stand against violence and for the values that we cherish. We can do better.

We can work to rebuild the bonds of trust from the ground up. It starts within families and communities. It was 51 years ago today that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called us to live out true meaning of our creed, to make the dream real for all Americans. That mission is as fiercely urgent today as when he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the hot August sun all those years ago.”

Except that Clinton, a Saul Alinsky adherent just like Barack Obama, has no interest in rebuilding bonds of trust. Like Obama, she wants to tear down America in order to rebuild it and replace it with a socialist state. Talk of “equality” and “healing” are merely arrows in her rhetorical quiver.

Clinton’s attempt to stoke the flames of racial resentment came as up-and-coming independent investigative journalist Charles C. Johnson announced he has filed a lawsuit after two law enforcement sources told him Michael Brown’s juvenile criminal record is under seal in a St. Louis court. Johnson also wonders why the so-called gentle giant opted to attend the most violent high school in the St. Louis area when he could have easily gone elsewhere.

Meanwhile, black leftists are plotting further unrest to ensure the survival and flourishing of their narrative of cop-hatred.

At a Washington, D.C. branch of Busboys and Poets, owned by celebrated radical leftist Andy Shallal, an NAACP official and other neo-communist radicals like Hugo Chavez-loving actor Danny Glover vowed to escalate their activities.

The town hall-style meeting was titled, “Ferguson and Beyond – The Way Forward: A Town Hall Meeting on Police Killings of Black Men.”

Dr. Ron Daniels, former executive director of the Marxist public interest law firm, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been essential in the Left’s long-running drive to dismantle the Global War on Terror, seemed to sum up the feelings of participants.

“We need to get ungovernable,” Daniels said. “We’ve been too tame.”

Hillary Clinton, who is determined to carry on Barack Obama’s agenda of racial antagonism, wholeheartedly agrees.
Title: Hillary Clinton’s Approval Numbers Return to Earth (Plunging) — WSJ/NBC Poll
Post by: DougMacG on September 10, 2014, 11:13:38 AM
Hillary Clinton’s Approval Numbers Return to Earth — WSJ/NBC Poll

Hillary;s approval/disapproval numbers have slid from +37 and +31 down to +2, 43 approve, 41 disapprove.
(Those will slide further as we re-acquaint ourselves with her character, personality and record.)

Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election?  I don't think so.   )
Title: NYT starting to turn on BamBam in prep for the next liar in chief Hillary
Post by: ccp on September 11, 2014, 06:54:14 AM
This is really a Clinton story.   The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one:  Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality'
by Jordan Schachtel  10 Sep 2014 430  post a comment 

Tim Arango, Baghdad Bureau Chief of the New York Times, lit up President Obama’s Middle East policies in a recent “Ask Me Anything” Q & A session with users of the online forum Reddit.

One user asked, “How do you rate the Obama administration’s actions in Iraq? What did they do right? What did they get wrong?

The Baghdad Bureau Chief responded by bluntly stating that the Obama administration since 2011 has “basically ignored the country [Iraq].”

He continued, “when [US] officials spoke about what was happening there they were often ignorant of the reality.”

The NYT correspondent said that Obama officials stubbornly refused to see the realities on the ground, “because it conflicted with their narrative.”

He then took a jab at Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken, known as one of the President’s trusted advisers on foreign policy.

“In 2012, as violence was escalating I wrote a story, citing UN statistics, that showed how civilian deaths from attacks were rising,” Arango added. “Tony Blinken, who was then Biden’s national security guy and a top Iraq official, pushed back, even wrote a letter to the editor, saying that violence was near historic lows. That was not true.”

Blinken is now Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama. After obtaining his JD Columbia Law School, he went straight into Democratic politics -- fundraising for the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis. Blinken then joined the Clinton administration under the assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian affairs. In 2008, he worked on Joe Biden’s failed campaign for President but was then appointed by President Obama to be his Deputy National Security Advisor in January of 2013.

VP Biden has previously referred to Blinken as his “go-to-guy” on Iraq -- known for helping to facilitate the US withdrawal from Baghdad -- a plan marred by the administration's failure to secure a status-of-forces agreement.

Even when the Islamic State was marching across Iraq unchecked, Obama officials ignored the jihadi group’s rise because it wasn’t politically expedient to tackle such issues, according to the NYT journalist.

Arango concluded: “Even after falluja fell to ISIS at the end of last year, the administration would push back on stories about Maliki’s sectarian tendencies saying they didn’t see it that way. So there was a concerted effort by the administration not to acknowledge the obvious until it became apparent -- with the fall of Mosul -- that Iraq was collapsing.”

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on September 11, 2014, 07:04:22 AM
Doug writes:

"Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election?  I don't think so.   )"

I hope your right.   But they have such a mafia like mob behind them and so many careers, opportunities, money at stake for so many who have influence, money and power and want more of the same that t she is a formidable force even though flawed when she tries to think and speak unprepared as well as everything else we know about here.

Title: Re: NYT starting to turn on BamBam in prep for the next liar in chief Hillary
Post by: DougMacG on September 11, 2014, 09:50:16 AM
This is really a Clinton story.   The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one:  Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality'   ...

That's right.  They want her (or someone) to represent all of the hope and change, but without the incompetence and glibness.  Liberalism is not the problem,they mistakenly argue, it is the flawed messenger.  Obama kept a tee time 5 minutes after his 5 minutes of vacation interrupting outrage over a beheading video.  Hillary traveled some record number of miles willing to accomplish nothing just to prove her unending commitment to work endlessly.

If not ignorance or inexperience, Hllary has her own problems.  She was for, against, and now for the Iraq war?  Her healthcare passage and rollout would have been different.  Really?  Her competence and readiness for the 3am phone call was on display during the warnings prior, the 13 hours during, and the aftermath cover-up of the Benghazi attacks?  Not so.

She needs 3 things to win and succeed.  The first two are mutually exclusive and the third is impossible:

1.  A nearly complete break with the Obama administration, calling him out on his errors and failures.
2.  The full backing and support of the Obama political machine that won two presidential elections.
3.  To be a candidate with a gift for politics and communication on a par with Bill Clinton, Obama and Reagan.

she has done all the ground work to be ready to launch a campaign.  Taking the Sec State job, quitting after one term, writing the book, working the book tour, and obviously her previous efforts getting elected and serving in the Senate.   She has test marketed her product and I say it failed.  Next should be to take her message nationwide in support of Dem candidates across the country.  To be the de facto national leader of her party as Obama implodes.  We are well into Sept with a month and a half to go and, for whatever reasons, she has not done that.

Very shortly after the midterms she needs to announce her decision one way or the other.  She can bring her flawed product to market and finish her career very likely as a two time loser.  Or as many smart people do, exit the scene while still perceived to be on top.  If she chooses the latter, she better do it soon; her polling trend looks like that is the last right side up one already happened. 

Once she announces she is out, her polling numbers and the value of her opinion and endorsements will go up.  Look at her husband's numbers.  The Dem party will be forced to scramble, same as the Republicans are doing now.  The next year will be interesting.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 11, 2014, 05:32:42 PM
Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so.  While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya.  Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too.  Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on September 12, 2014, 06:45:38 AM
Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so.  While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya.  Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too.  Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.

"Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too."

The gun running out of Bengazi doesn't seem to be backed up with evidence, at least yet, so we still have no idea what the mission was.  The rest of that statement rings 100% true without the missing piece.

"Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername"  - Susan Rice and Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, lol.  Oddly, President Obama opposed his own policy in Libya, a difficult point to argue after the fact.  Ask Michelle about her entourage booking 60 rooms at a Spanish villa during the economic collapse and flying the family dog on a separate jet to Nantucket, he doesn't know how to stand up to strong women.
Title: Hillary aides picking which Benghazi documents to disclose, new polls
Post by: DougMacG on September 15, 2014, 08:57:07 PM
The discussion on the Benghazi thread is worth noting here.

Hillary is not popular anymore
"a staggering decline in favorability"

Worse yet her strong approval / disapproval is now in negative territory.

The story ends with a good point, that the Republican nominee is the one who can still improve his/her standing, still make a good first impression.  Hillary cannot.

Title: Hillary goes back to Iowa where she finished 3rd last time around
Post by: DougMacG on September 16, 2014, 08:15:12 AM
Liberal journalist John Dickerson from Slate covers the trip:

One observer: based on what he’d heard, that she was running for president. “It's obvious she is. I mean, unless you're really, really dumb.”

More correctly she is "obviously" testing the waters, failing, and now we will see if SHE is "really, really dumb”.    :wink:

"The conventional complaint among Democratic campaign veterans and strategists who are not in the Clinton camp is that she has not developed a message and a rationale for her candidacy. She’s running on the fact that it’s her turn. Inevitability is deadly for candidates."
(Dickerson goes on, unpersuasively, to disagree with that view.)

I asked a man passing by what he thought of the afternoon. “She’s no Bill,” he said.
There is no doubt in my mind that she hates campaigning, hates being questioned, and above all, hates losing.  Dickerson argues she is working to fix her problems.  But they can't all be fixed.  The only way she wins is in a hold-your-nose election where everybody hates all of the candidates.
Title: The top 50 Hillary Benghazi Lies
Post by: DougMacG on September 16, 2014, 08:19:41 AM
Loaded with links and extremely well documented.  These are not small issues that will go away easily.
Title: Hillary will win and here is why
Post by: ccp on September 16, 2014, 08:59:38 AM


That Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and outright criminal is clear.

Sadly, many people just don't care or will look the other way. 

We can minimize her with negative stuff like this (and we should continue to press on about it) but this will not defeat her. 

75% of people in this country are reportedly living from pay check to pay check.  Until Republicans can come up with policies and messages that can resonate to some of these 75% Republicans will always struggle in MHO.
Once again the Clintons show they "get it":.   How to reach the masses and to re-ignite the American Dream without demonizing the rich.

Republicans need to do the same thing but without more government, more regulations, more taxes, and more welfare.  I am not sure if they will or even can.   They just don't seem to be as clever.  And some are clearly corrupt.   

See how the Clintons can continue to stay in the game no matter how vile they are?  They know how to message and sometimes come up with the policies that resonates with many people.

The Republicans can't (or won't). :x :cry:
Title: Single motherhood
Post by: ccp on September 19, 2014, 05:07:21 AM
It takes a village - the state, the employer and everyone other than the mother and father to raise a child.   What single mother is going to hear this and think of course she should get paid time off to pick up her child in minus 30 degree weather?

**********Hillary Clinton Blames Republicans for 'Egregious' Policies Toward Women
ABC News By Liz Kreutz

During a panel at the Center for American Progress today, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's message was clear: Equal pay for women, access to affordable, quality childcare, paid sick leave, and the full participation by women in the U.S. labor force will lead to a stronger economy (even a 10% increase in the GDP, she argued).

But Clinton also made clear she believes politicians on "the other side of the aisle" are preventing any such policy changes from passing through.

"Congress increasingly, despite the best efforts of my friends and others, is living in an evidence-free zone where what the reality is in the lives of Americans is so far from the minds of too many who don't place the highest priority on … family-centered economics," Clinton said.

"We could all tell stories of people we know who had really egregiously been impacted by the failure of our political leadership on the other side of the aisle to recognize the importance of making sure that people who work hard, play by the rules, have a chance to get into the middle class and certainly a chance to stay in the middle class," she added.

I'm Baa-aack! Clintons Give Hillary's 2016 Efforts An Unofficial Start in Iowa

Everything You Need to Know About the Iowa Steak Fry

In Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton Pushes For Energy Efficient Casinos

Today's panel in Washington, D.C., which also included Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., focused on women's economic security and finding solutions to what Gillibrand dubbed as "Mad Men" era policies that she believes still exists in the United States today.

One featured guest, a student and single mother from Chicago, described how she was laid off from her job at Whole Foods after she took a day off to pick up her son after his school cancelled classes in -30 degree weather.

Gillibrand said that lack of paid leave makes her "the angriest," arguing that even Pakistan and Afghanistan have more paid leave than the United States. She said stories like this Chicago mother's were "outrageous."

The overall message among all the panelists was the notion that "the number one" thing the U.S. could do to make its economy stronger would be to tap into the full potential of women in the workplace. Without this support, Gillibrand argued, "we are providing an artificial drag on the economy."

Clinton, however, was the most vocal of the women to slam Republicans for their resistance to change.

"I think the other side will hang on for all they're worth - Nancy [Pelosi] knows that better than anybody. But I think if voters, if citizens speak up for themselves, for their families and their futures, we will see the kind of changes we're all advocating for," Clinton said to audience applause.

While the panelists engaged in an amiable conversation about an issue they are all passionate about, the end took a bit of a competitive turn.

Pelosi teasingly called out Clinton (former Senator of New York) for "bragging" that New York had the first women's rights conventions at Seneca Falls in 1848. Pelosi reminded everyone that her state - California - had just celebrated its 10 th anniversary with paid leave.

DeLauro then chimed in to defend her state too. "I just don't want to pre-empt New York or California, but quite frankly Connecticut was the first state to have paid sick leave and to increase its minimum wage," she quipped.

Clinton simmered down the group: "Competition is good on this one!" Clinton yelled out, with a smile.
Title: Re: Single motherhood
Post by: DougMacG on September 19, 2014, 08:12:42 AM
I don't follow how they made the leap from a business not firing her for caring for her son to having the government force the business to pay her whether she comes to work or not.  Since they are arguing policy with anecdotal stories, Whole Foods is already under a squeeze right now with competition coming at them from all sides.  Paying the people who don't work already took down the airline and automaking industries.  Let's take down your local store next and you can drive further with no car to a Soviet style supply outlet with its empty shelves.

What about the consumer?  There are women in that role too.  They worked hard all day but can't buy fresh fruits and vegetables for their little ones because their preferred store is no longer has one checkout lane open with the workers out on paid leave.  Unintended consequences of liberal activist policies are not that hard to imagine.  What we can't see are all the business competing for workers that never started because the all rules are just too complicated, costly and constraining.

Showing a little compassion is good for a business in the eyes of their customers, community and in their competition for good workers.  Having the rules for those businesses all same-sized and set in Washington takes away competitive differences and advantages, increases the costs, cuts out competition, worsens the service and raises the prices.  That is a women's issue too.

Women are faring TERRIBLY in the Obama era economy.  Thom Tillis, Sen candidate in NC, was just making that point, but no one is shouting it nationwide from the rooftops.

The Clinton administration (of the 90s) started a lot of this with the big push for "family leave".  They said it was limited to larger companies and it was unpaid leave.  How can we be against that?  Well, for one thing it is the federal government setting local, private establish rules, and secondly we know that mandated unpaid leave leads to mandated paid leave, which is one more way of paying people to not work.

Paid leave is what Adrian Peterson is receiving, by union rules and government subsidy from our far-left Governor.  $700,000 a week for beating up children with no wear and tear on your knees is not bad pay, and with the money committed to Peterson, the team can leave that position vacant, lose games, money and viewership.  What could possibly go wrong with feminist and activists running our formerly private sector.

How about if we leave welfare programs to the government, and allow businesses employ workers in privately negotiated agreements between consenting adults.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on September 19, 2014, 09:36:40 AM

I couldn't agree with you more. 

We will have to listen to 2 more years of the Hillary propaganda.  Hopefully not 10.

OTOH there are always more ready to pick up where she leaves off.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on September 19, 2014, 01:26:10 PM
"...there are always more ready to pick up where she leaves off."

Yes.  It is so easy to pick on the personal flaws of Pres. Obama or Hillary Clinton, but the more lasting hit is to expose the flaws and fallacies of that governing philosophy to everyone.

Obamacare (or HillaryCare) did not fail because of who was President or because of website or a bad roll-out.  It failed because it is a bad idea.  The economy isn't stalled because Obama plays golf.  It is stalled because that is the best case, economic effect of all these policies.  Hillary is dishonest, in bed with wall street and has no management skills, but the reason I don't want her to be President is because she would lead us further in the wrong direction.

If we succeed in knocking HRC out of her political captain's chair, some clone with better communication skills and less baggage will emerge with an even better sounding version of the same old liberalism/socialism - like what happened in 2008.

We probably would be better off pulling for her to win the nomination, and then lose.

But I agree with Bigdog who once mentioned Jim Webb, or some other moderate Democrat.  America would be better off if both parties looked for candidates with some common sense and required a high level of integrity in their leaders.  It would be nice if the country didn't completely fall off the deep end every time Republicans put up a losing candidate.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on September 22, 2014, 08:27:56 AM


Title: Dick Morris opens website dedicated to tracking Hillary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2014, 08:03:35 AM
Some over the top content, but some real goodies too.  This could turn into a really good resource:
Title: Hillary's personal relationship with Saul Alinsky
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
second post of day
Title: A convenient list from VDH of Hillary's failures as Sec State.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2014, 09:35:49 AM

Hillary Clinton is all but running for president, boasting about her reset diplomacy while secretary of state during Obama’s first term. But it is hard to find a single example of inspired diplomacy during her tenure. Canceling missile-defense cooperation with the Czechs and Poles while resetting relations with Vladimir Putin was not wise. Nor was leading from behind in Libya (“We came, we saw, and he died”). Nor was her emphasis on climate change as a global threat or her pressure on Israel to grant concessions supposedly to ensure Middle East peace. Nor was welcoming the election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Nor was ignoring requests for beefed-up security at the consulate in Benghazi. Nor was claiming that the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi were due to a spontaneous riot over a video (“What difference at this point does it make?”). Nor was pulling all troops out of Iraq. Nor was lifting the embargos and trade sanctions against Iran. Nor was much of anything except an impressive near million miles of traveling while secretary, an astonishing feat for someone in her sixties and often in poor health.
Title: Posted here because this is all about Hillary
Post by: ccp on October 04, 2014, 12:12:23 PM
Panetta:  he and the Hill were right!!!

I am not sure what he means by arming Syrian rebels.  Aren't many of them now ISIS?   Aren't many of them now using our weapons from Iraq. 

From the guy touted as having no political "axe to grind" though if you ask me he is clearly setting up Hillary to look courageous and insightful while lobbying for a job with her after she wins 2016 this is so self serving. 

The building up of Hillary as a geopolitical stalwart continues.  At the same time using her grandparent hood to woo the babes hearts. 

********Leon Panetta: Obama Ignored Panetta and Clinton's Advice
Friday, 03 Oct 2014 09:14 AM

By Melissa Clyne

President Barack Obama regularly ignored the advice of former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and instead made foreign policy decisions based on the opinions of his insular White House staff, Panetta writes in his new book "Worthy Choices," scheduled for release on Oct. 7, according to The Daily Beast reports.

 Despite warning Syria that the use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line," Obama did nothing when the Syrian military killed some 1,400 with them. Panetta writes that the president had initially decided to strike, but "abruptly reversed himself — without consulting his national-security Cabinet members."

 "The result, I felt, was a blow to American credibility," Panetta said. "When the president as commander in chief draws a red line, it is critical that act if the line is crossed. The power of the United States rests on its word. [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's action clearly defied President Obama's warning; by failing to respond, it sent the wrong message to the world."

 The president also overruled Panetta and Clinton and when deciding not to arm the Syrian rebels in 2012, resulting in the current mess and emboldening the Islamic State (ISIS), according to Panetta. The U.S. waited too long to get involved in Syria and left Iraq too soon,  said Panetta who appeared last month on CBS News "60 Minutes."

"Hesitation and half steps have consequences as well — and those remain to be determined," he writes in his book.

 Panetta and those who agreed with him "viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.

 Panetta's fears have been realized about what might happen in Iraq without the stability of residual U.S. forces.

 "It was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together" he writes. "My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in Iraq's interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq's military."

 Speaking publicly was a no-no in the Obama White House.

 Panetta says he was "chastised" if he dealt directly with Congress or the media without prior White House approval.

 Another conflict arose during the 2012 discussions of the swap of kidnapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five members of the Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to Panetta. Obama and his inner circle ignored the recommendation of Panetta, Clinton, and others on the national security team that it was a bad idea.

 "I opposed the swap for several reasons," he wrote. "First, I did not believe the Taliban were sincere in their efforts to reconcile with the Afghan government; they were, after all, attacking our forces on the field of battle. Second, I did not believe it was fair to trade five for one," Panetta wrote. "Secretary Clinton and I — and others — did not think we could proceed, and as much as we wanted to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home and reunite him with his family, the deal evaporated."

 While that deal fell through, another was struck this year that still included a five-for-one exchange. Panetta writes that U.S. law "had to be changed to weaken the assurances given by the Qatari government that the Taliban would be kept out of the fight going forward," according to The Daily Beast.

 "The bigger issue is: Is this a good deal for the security interests of the United States? That depends entirely on the assurance that we received and whether in fact these five very bad men are prevented from returning to the fight," Panetta wrote.

 He remains concerned that Iraq — which "U.S. forces had fought and died to secure" — will become al-Qaida's next safe haven.

 "That is exactly what it had in Afghanistan pre-9/11," he wrote. "After all we have done to decimate al-Qaida's senior leadership and its core, those efforts will be for naught if we allow it to rebuild a base of operations in the Middle East."

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 05, 2014, 07:26:31 AM
"From the guy touted as having no political "axe to grind" though if you ask me he is clearly setting up Hillary to look courageous and insightful while lobbying for a job with her after she wins 2016 this is so self serving." 


I've seen the two of them interviewed together-- quite the mutual admiration society.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on October 05, 2014, 04:10:09 PM
Hillary's fan club is gearing up with this hard hitting piece in the MSM:

"Hillary has waited for more than 50 years to make her dream come true. As a little girl, she spent hours dancing in the sun and, as she wrote from Wellesley College to a former high school classmate, she imagined the sunlight was intended for her — beamed down by God, with heavenly movie cameras watching my every move.”

Still they don't know if she is running:

"will she or won’t she? Should she or shouldn’t she?"

I am more than a little nervous about my bet with ccp.  There is no doubt she is running trial balloons about running.  And there is no doubt those trial balloons are failing.  On the other hand, being liberal and being delusional go hand in hand.  And there is by definition no one in her upper, inner circle who is not a yes ma'am.  What we know for certain is the timing, that her party needs to know URGENTLY after the mid-term elections if she is NOT running.  If she runs, (as Dick Morris puts it) that puts her in the semi-finals, and she has a one in four chance of winning.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 05, 2014, 07:17:51 PM
There is NO other Democrat who can run.  She WANTS to run.  She WILL run.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons - it's not that simple
Post by: DougMacG on October 06, 2014, 09:09:46 AM
"There is NO other Democrat who can run."

First, that's not her problem.  )    But if so, then there is no ready made running mate, ready to step in on a moments notice.  

You may mean - no one who can run without the machine behind them, but if she doesn't run, the Clintons will still most certainly be involved with power brokering, fundraising, etc.  Maybe it is irrelevant, but who is his Obama's hand picked successor?  It wouldn't honestly be Hillary or Biden.  Maybe they can run Valerie Jarrett for a third term.

"She WANTS to run."

I think you mean she wants her name in the record books as first woman President and wants some of the parts of being President.  But she doesn't like campaigning.  She doesn't like dealing with little people.  She can't work a room like the masters of politics do.  She hates criticism and hates being questioned.  I'm sure she hates the unflattering pictures of her running posted around the internet, and is starting to see those every day in the mirror - to put it as nicely as I can.  

"She WILL run."

Maybe so, but there are some very real, personal and political issues that will guide that.  It is a 10 year commitment unless you start thinking one term.  It's physical and it's on your feet.  If it was a one term plan then we are back to the lightweight running mate issue.  She will be of record age, and in medium health and condition, best case.  She has no magical connection with young people, or blacks, or gays, or Hispanics, or males of any kind.  Clintons are the masters of polling.  She still holds the big lead but they see the trend line downward throughout the trial balloon period and it must be troubling.  The more she runs, the less popular she gets.  The only question is whether she is smart and objective enough to see that.  (Most think she isn't.)

Being President is a cut in pay and a curtailment of her freedoms.  Losing twice, and losing ugly isn't the best way to start off in retirement, nor to build the Foundation.  Can't she do more for the women of the world there, make the Grandmother excuse, and never face scrutiny again?

They survived more scandals than anyone in history, but if she is really so confident, in private, that they will sail through every mis-step and scandal without damage, including Bill's, why throw the lamps around the living quarters?

Who would want to follow Obama running or serving on the left?  The left is already turning on him.  Thye media is turning.  What Dem wants to be President with a Republican House and Senate, preside over budget fights, healthcare cutbacks and debt ceiling hike fights?  Her agenda would be meaningless with a Republican congress.  She would have a divided country at best, with little room for triangulation.  The mid-term wave, if it happens, will shape events.  If Republicans can hit 53 Senators, the next Dem is in for a struggle.
Title: Doug I pray you are right; but I don't think so.
Post by: ccp on October 06, 2014, 07:27:48 PM
Doug wrote, "I am more than a little nervous about my bet with ccp."

Doug I wish I am wrong.  There is no question she is running and will run.  Read this shit spewing from her phony mouth.  Her grandchild should grow up and do anything a boy can.  The same opportunity.  The same wages etc etc etc.    Sickening.  don't underestimate how this will make many of the babes swoon.  Their female hormones will be swirling with pride and energy to vote for the FIRST GIRL.  Not all but many.  Many of the young ones.  Nearly all the single mothers.  Probably most if not nearly all of the minority babes - Latino,  Black and definitely the Asian ones.   The MSM will be googoo freakin gagga.  The CNN babes will be blushing from here to the moon.  Huffington Post will be wall to wall girly power.  The entire Crat machine will rally behind her.  The lib Jewish crowd from Hollywood to the Big Bankers to the billionaires Soros Fuckerberg and the more will be out in force along with  Chucky Schumer to Debbie the crazy Schultz to the other crazy Schultz on MSLSD.  The Wall street crowd will be funding the Clinton Foundation till their coffiers overflow with gold, silver, and stock options pennies on the dollar the rest of us pay, as will Chelsea have million dollar board room offers.   The mobster army from McAullife to Panetta, to Carville  to hundreds others will be lining the halls showered gifts of support on the Clintons while slipping *remember me* notes into the Hill's pants suits pockets.

Read this.  Caution this is so obscene I would rate this triple XXX in its shameless and raw vulgarity:

*********Hillary Clinton has "grandmother glow" after Charlotte's birth
 As she weighs another bid for the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she has a "grandmother glow" that's fueling her campaign for female empowerment and gender equality around the world.

Speaking to a national convention of female real estate professionals, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender called on business and political leaders to close the gap in wages and leadership positions between men and women.

Will new grandma Hillary Clinton run for president in 2016?

A woman in the audience complimented Clinton, telling her she looked "beautiful," and Clinton responded, "I think it is a grandmother glow."

Clinton's first grandchild, Charlotte, was born to her daughter Chelsea and son-in law Marc Mezvinsky last Friday.

During her speech, Clinton said she wanted all women to grow up in a world of "full participation and shared prosperity."

"I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who was born in that hospital on the same day," she said. "I just believe that. That's the way I was raised."

Some have speculated that Clinton's granddaughter might make her more likely to launch a presidential bid. "Let's be serious. She is running for president," said Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation." "She does not want to be explaining to 10-year-old Charlotte that grandma could have been president but decided to stay home and change diapers."

Drawing heavily on her own professional and personal experiences - including several references to her bruising presidential campaign in 2008 - Clinton said in her speech on Thursday that women face double standards in business and politics and that governments should work to enact policies that break down barriers to equal opportunity. The crowd offered several standing ovations in response.

"These ceilings I'm describing don't just keep down women, they hold back entire economies and countries," she said, "because no country can truly thrive by denying the contributions of half of its people."

It's a familiar message for Clinton, who's repeatedly hit those themes as she travels the campaign trail to help Democrats in the midterm elections. On Thursday, she said the U.S. should eliminate what she called the "motherhood penalty" by requiring paid leave for new mothers. The measure, she said, would pave the way for more women to participate in the workforce.
"Laws matter," Clinton said. "I believe 100 percent in women being able to make responsible choices, but it's hardly a choice if you're working at a low-wage job, you get no leave and you can't even afford to bond with your baby because you have to get back to work."

Though Clinton's 2008 presidential bid downplayed talk of gender politics, many expect Clinton to lean more heavily on a message of women's empowerment if she runs again in 2016. She's frequently invoked former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt's quip that women in public life need to have "skin as thick as the hide of a rhinoceros" in public appearances, and she's dwelt at length on the double standards faced by men and women in the professional world.

Clinton was also in South Florida to promote her book about her tenure as the nation's top diplomat and to help Democrat Charlie Crist raise money for his gubernatorial campaign. Crist, a former Republican governor, is locked in a tight race with Repubican Gov. Rick Scott, who has outspent the Democratic nominee by a 2-1 margin in television advertising. The two are currently neck and neck in public polling - Scott was up 46 to 44 percent in a Quinnipiac poll released in September, but other recent surveys have shown the Democrat ahead.

Clinton has said she expects to make a decision on a White House bid by the beginning of next year. The appearances help increase her exposure to voters in the nation's largest swing-voting state and allow her to reconnect with some of the same big-money donors who supported her and her husband's past political campaigns.

Polls have shown Clinton dominating the Democratic primary if she decides to run. They've also shown her in a competitive position against many of her prospective Republican challengers.
Title: Morris: ISIL War endangers Hillary's candidacy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2014, 12:05:06 PM
Title: Morris: Panetta's book is a contract hit by Hillary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2014, 07:19:21 PM
Panetta's Book Is A Contract Hit On Obama By Hillary
Published on on October 9, 2014
Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff who was appointed with Hillary's blessing, has written a book with one clear motive: To bolster Hillary's narrative that the failures of the foreign policy that she designed were simply not her fault.

Everything was Obama's fault, not Hillary's and, of course, not Panetta's.

In the former Secretary of State's book Hard Choices, she criticized Obama's lack of strategic vision saying "not doing stupid stuff" is not an overarching foreign policy organizing principle.

Now Panetta echoes this criticism in his own book, Worthy Fights, describing a president who "avoids the battle, complains and misses opportunities."  He accuses Obama of "coordinating negotiations" to allow our troops to stay in Iraq to guard against an ISIS resurgence without "really leading them."
According to Panetta, the White House "seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one" to keep our troops in Iraq, But, Panetta points out that without Obama's personal involvement, it became impossible to convince Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki to reverse his position and agree to let a garrison of American troops remain.  And Obama did not make the effort to persuade him.
Panetta amplifies the impact of the failure to leave troops there saying  "To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al Qaeda's resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country."

He said Obama had "kind of lost his way" and famously noted that the president too often "relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader."
Panetta's comments come as Hillary wrestles with a central threat to her candidacy.  She was Secretary of State for four years yet the foreign policy crafted then has proven to be an unprecedented failure.  Everything that she worked on has blown up in our face.  The Arab Spring has become a nightmare. 

We are on the verge of signing a phony deal with Iran that will let them enrich uranium far into the future so they can make a bomb anytime they want.

The reset button with Russia is a joke and we have made zero progress on human rights or fair trade with China.
Hillary realizes that this is not a record on which to predicate a presidential campaign.  So if the foreign policy she helped to craft is a fiasco, she has to blame someone else -- the president.
Panetta stepped into help frame the issue.  A Clintonista above all, he legitimized Hillary's efforts to distance herself from the president on foreign policy without having to attack him herself.  Now the negative points for disloyalty will accrue to Panetta not to Hillary.
The former defense secretary underscores the extent to which Obama's failure to act against Syria when it crossed the "red line" he had drawn against the use of chemical weapons.  He said "It was damaging."  Obama "sent a mixed message, not only to the Syrians, but to the world. And that is something you do not want to establish in the world: an issue with regard to the credibility of the United States to stand by what we say we're gonna do."

As our involvement in Iraq and Syria escalates into a full blown war -- as it must now that our airstrikes are failing to do the job -- the blame game will grow with it.  Panetta's comments are an attempt to swat the blame away from Hillary Clinton.

He will get his reward. Just wait.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on October 10, 2014, 05:15:34 AM
Hi Crafty.  Morris  points out pretty much what we said here a few days ago.

Certainly he knows the Clintons.

This is why I put Panetta into the "snake" category.   And we must never forget this guy does not believe in the United States as a sovereign country.  He is for one world government in his heart.  The rest is all stage play.

Title: WSJ: An Affair to Remember
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 23, 2014, 05:02:45 PM
An Affair to Remember
As Hillary gears up to run, look for attempts to rewrite 1990s history.
Hillary and Bill Clinton in New York in 1998 ENLARGE
Hillary and Bill Clinton in New York in 1998 Getty Images
Oct. 22, 2014 7:00 p.m. ET

As Hillary and Bill Clinton prepare for another White House ramble, the country is fated to endure more than a few 1990s flashbacks, often including attempts to whitewash the real history. The latest character to re-emerge is Monica Lewinsky, the former intern who is doffing her beret to reinvent herself as an anti-cyberbullying activist.

In a speech this week at a Forbes magazine conference that went viral on the Web, Ms. Lewinsky describes herself as a “survivor” of online abuse—she became “the creature from the media lagoon.” As the worst abusers, she cited Matt Drudge and the New York Post, which gave Ms. Lewinsky a term of tabloid endearment as “the portly pepperpot.” Another culprit was “a politically motivated independent prosecutor,” or Ken Starr.

The problem is that Ms. Lewinsky was actually the victim of the Clinton lagoon, as White House operatives tried to destroy her reputation when the scandal broke. The real bullies weren’t online but in the West Wing.

On Jan. 21, 1998, Mr. Clinton told his aide Sidney Blumenthal that Ms. Lewinsky “came on to me and made a sexual demand on me,” according to Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition to Mr. Starr. Mr. Clinton added that he “rebuffed her” and then she “threatened him. She said that she would tell people they’d had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn’t be the stalker any more.”

Mr. Blumenthal then repeated this tale to anyone in the press corps who would listen, and the “stalker” smear soon made it into multiple media reports under the authority of “a White House source.” Mrs. Clinton for her part described Ms. Lewinsky as “a narcissistic loony toon,” as the first lady’s friend Diane Blair recounted in the personal papers archive opened in 2010 by the University of Arkansas library.

Meanwhile, Mr. Clinton fanned out across the talk shows to deny that he had any romantic or otherwise improper relationship, which he continued to insist until he was forced to admit his lies by the blue DNA dress. Then the Clintons flipped to attacking the respected jurist Mr. Starr as a rabid partisan. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and he later was stripped of his law license.

We correct the record not least to point out that the Clintons weren’t above falsely smearing a young woman not much older than their daughter as an oversexed psycho blackmailer. Since Ms. Lewinsky brought it up, we also wonder what the modern feminists applauding her address think about men in positions of power publicly shaming a female subordinate without her consent.

But the story is especially instructive for what it reveals about the Clinton family mores of saying or doing whatever it takes to win. Mr. Blumenthal and the rest of the Clinton menagerie are rested and ready for another run at political power. As the 2016 election nears, Americans should be prepared for more attempts to rewrite 1990s history.
Title: Hillary: "You didn't make that job , , ,"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2014, 11:48:58 AM
Title: Re: Hillary: Businesses don't create jobs. Businesses do.
Post by: DougMacG on October 28, 2014, 08:42:10 AM

What is the cartoon bubble over Hillary saying right now?  'Elizabeth Warren said it.  Obama said it.  No problem.  So I said it and the shit hits the fan!  What's up with that?!'

Now she says entrepreneurs do create jobs.  [No they don't - if you tax them and regulate them to death.]

The twitter world is abuzz at the "gaffe" and "correction" from Hillary Clinton:  "Too late Grandma". "How is "businesses don't create jobs" a shorthand for "businesses create jobs"?"  You don't understand jobs, or you're a pandering,l double speaking flip-flopper, or both.

The double standard of being held accountable for what you say and what you believe is sooo unfair ... when Barack was not at this point in his candidacy!

Guess what Hillary, this is not 2007-2008.  You are not a shining, innocent face from the great unknown.  And America is not looking for a 5th straight President that doesn't understand economics.

Becoming a stay at home Grandma ought to look pretty good to her right now.  I expect her announcement within the next 2-3 weeks.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2014, 09:50:45 AM
This woman took it in front of the country as her serial humper of a husband did his thing over the years across the country. 

She does not embarass easily.  Her will to power is extraordinary and she has the entire progressive-liberal-Democratic machine and its running dogs in the Pravdas at her beck and command.    She is running.  Period.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on October 28, 2014, 11:12:48 AM
This woman took it in front of the country as her serial humper of a husband did his thing over the years across the country. 

She does not embarass easily.  Her will to power is extraordinary and she has the entire progressive-liberal-Democratic machine and its running dogs in the Pravdas at her beck and command.    She is running.  Period.

Hard for her (or anyone) to take back words spoken anywhere in this day and age, and she has NONE of the agility of Bill or Barack.  What was she saying in that quote?  I have read it, heard it and viewed it and it sounds to me more like senility than ignorance.  The point was a cheap copy of Elizabeth Warren's angry, anti-capitalism rant followed by the punchline that her husband brought arithmetic to Washington, which is the punchline to a different joke.  And this script came from a teleprompter!  Besides the non-sense, how many times in how many speeches over the next two years will she be able to say, "what my husband" said or did.  I'll tell her what her husband said and did.  He presided over two years of failed, lethargic, Obama-like growth and then lost historically in his first mid-terms.  He responded by firing the First Lady as head of Healthcare, and she was never again given a public, policy role.  He scrapped Hillary-care completely, gave the finger to the left wing of his party, passed Reagan's hemisphere-wide free trade agreement with majority Republican support and against majority Dem opposition.  Bill Clinton cut capital gains tax rates - on the wealthiest among us, and he ended "welfare as we know it."  By 1996 he was perhaps more Republican than Bob Dole.  Does anyone think Hillary has the ability to pivot like that -without political consequence?

No one can stop her from running if that is her choice.  But she is not capable of running with the magic of her husband or a 2008 Barack Obama who pitched a perfect campaign, and she will not get a free ride in the press. (IMHO)  She just has WAY too much baggage.  As for the formidable political machine, she had that last time too; it was her turn.  She had no one to beat of any stature then as well.  The emerging popularity of the new guy was accelerated by the weaknesses seen in the formidable front runner.

For 2016, she can either run against Obama's policies and the record of the far left, or she can adopt the slogan, "Four More Years!"  We can see that she doesn't flip flop easily between these two, opposing strategies.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on October 28, 2014, 09:20:16 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on October 28, 2014, 09:33:09 PM
IBD Editorials

Hillary's Backtracking Balderdash About Jobs

"Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs," Hillary Clinton said at a campaign rally for Martha Coakley...
 [Boston Globe has Coakley trailing the Republican in Mass. Governor race by 9 points!]

Politics: In case you haven't heard: Hillary Clinton wants to retract the statement she made at a campaign rally last Friday in front of adoring fans that businesses and corporations don't create jobs.

Never mind that it's all on camera and that she certainly looked like she was in full command of her faculties and having a grand old time ripping the nation's job creators.

After becoming a national laughingstock, she now says she meant to say: "Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America, and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas."

That's right: She really loves businesses, always has.

This is the same Hillary whose first contribution to public policy was 20 years ago, when she foisted the wildly unpopular HillaryCare on the nation. When informed then that it would drive many businesses into bankruptcy, she haughtily replied: "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."

Yes, she's a real champion of the nation's employers.

But almost equally absurd is her new spin that what she's really against is "tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs" and the "trickle-down economics" that has "failed spectacularly."

Oh really? We're losing iconic American companies and "good-paying jobs here" because of our highest-in-the-world corporate tax rate, which she has opposed cutting. Her line about "trickle-down economics" is the liberal fairy tale that refuses to go away.

Under Reaganomics, which the left disparages as trickle-down, the economy expanded at 4%, and middle-class and black incomes went up.

Under Hillary's old boss, the economy has grown at barely 2%, middle-class incomes have lost ground to inflation, and black incomes have seen their fastest decline. Under Obama, nothing has trickled down, and poverty rates remain near record levels.

If supply-side economics was such a failure, why did Clinton's husband sign into law a capital gains tax cut? Why did he agree to welfare legislation that replaced government handouts with work?

Hillary originally wanted to run in 2016 as her husband did two decades ago — as a centrist, pro-business "new Democrat." Alas, hers isn't the party of moderation any longer. To be pro-business, it believes, is to be an enemy of the people.

Hillary Clinton has been exposed. Her radical beliefs about how a modern economy works were on display for the world to see last weekend. It was her Howard Dean moment, and it won't go away soon.

 Investor's Business Daily:
Title: Never count a Clinton out.
Post by: ccp on October 29, 2014, 05:02:21 AM
Missing from the statement is exactly what or who does create jobs if businesses don't.

I hazard to assume she meant big government.   In hers and Obama's world she is to a limited degree correct.  Expand big government wildly and yes we now have many more jobs.  Just that those people are now paid for by taxpayers. 

But lest never take our eye off the ball when speaking of the Clintons.  Remember when Bill said the "era of big government is over"?  And his approval ratings went from somewhere in the 40+% to well over 50%?  Myself along with Rush were astonished at this.  One darn speech is all it took.

Title: Re: Never count a Clinton out.
Post by: DougMacG on October 29, 2014, 08:08:44 AM
Missing from the statement is exactly what or who does create jobs if businesses don't.

I hazard to assume she meant big government.   In hers and Obama's world she is to a limited degree correct.  Expand big government wildly and yes we now have many more jobs.  Just that those people are now paid for by taxpayers. 

But lest never take our eye off the ball when speaking of the Clintons.  Remember when Bill said the "era of big government is over"?  And his approval ratings went from somewhere in the 40+% to well over 50%?  Myself along with Rush were astonished at this.  One darn speech is all it took.

Their economics comes out of focus groups testing what Dem constituents like to hear.  So Hillary mumbles something about trickling from the ground up and the middle out as a fictional alternative to their fictional construction of trickle down.  How about we just recognize the positive qualities in an economy required for healthy economic growth and run that direction.  If you want jobs, you need investment.  If you want investment, stop punishing it.  If you want more people to work and fell like they are contributing, don't pay them more to do the opposite.  If you want people to rise freely up the income ladder, don't chop off the lower rungs.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on October 30, 2014, 12:55:59 AM
If only we had a population that could grasp these concepts.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on November 05, 2014, 09:45:26 PM
Reality check for the Clintons.  Bill Clinton put it all on the line for Alison Lundegren Grimes.  ANd Grimes called herself a "Bill Clinton Democrat".
Grimes spent $20  million and lost by 16 points.

For Hillary, she put it all on the line for who?  Kay Hagan of North Carolina.  The more Hillary went there, the more we knew Hagan's lead would evaporate.
Hagan and backers spent $48 million and lost by 2 points.


Hillary Clinton — politician and grandmom — plays to Kay Hagan’s base in North Carolina

Hillary Clinton, Kay Hagan make appeal to women during Charlotte rally

The Clinton magic never did transfer over to anyone but Bill Clinton.

Another election observation is that 28 of the 60 Senators who voted for Obamacare are now out.
Title: This astute analyst realized Hillary won the 2014 election
Post by: ccp on November 06, 2014, 06:10:49 AM
Twisting, contorting, illogical "logic", stretching the truth, word games (what is is?) should make this guy a great candidate for a job with the Clintons:
Title: George Will, Re-thinking Hillary 2016
Post by: DougMacG on November 08, 2014, 11:52:44 PM
It's nice when George Will expresses my view for me since he gets paid for it and I don't.

Hillary will be the next President if people want an Obama third term, a nearly unimaginable scenario.


Rethinking Hillary 2016
Her candidacy makes sense only if voters will be in the mood for a third Obama term.
By George Will

Now that two of the last three Democratic presidencies have been emphatically judged to have been failures, the world’s oldest political party — the primary architect of this nation’s administrative state — has some thinking to do. The accumulating evidence that the Democratic party is an exhausted volcano includes its fixation with stale ideas, such as the supreme importance of a 23rd increase in the minimum wage. Can this party be so blinkered by the modest success of its third most recent presidency, Bill Clinton’s, that it will sleepwalk into the next election behind Hillary Clinton?

In 2016, she will have won just two elections in her 69 years, the last one ten years previously. Ronald Reagan went ten years from his second election to his presidential victory at age 69, but do Democrats want to wager their most precious possession, the presidential nomination, on the proposition that Clinton has political talents akin to Reagan’s?

In October, Clinton was campaigning, with characteristic futility, for Martha Coakley, the losing candidate for Massachusetts governor, when she said: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” Watch her on YouTube. When saying this, she glances down, not at a text but at notes, and proceeds with the hesitancy of someone gathering her thoughts. She is not reading a speechwriter’s blunder. When she said those 13 words she actually was thinking.

You may be wondering, to use eight other Clinton words that will reverberate for a long time: “What difference at this point does it make?” This difference: Although she says her 13 words “short-handed” her thinking, what weird thinking can they be shorthand for?

Yuval Levin, whose sharp thinking was honed at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought, is editor of the National Affairs quarterly and author of two books on science and public policy and, most recently, of The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. He is one of conservatism’s most sophisticated and measured explicators, so his biting assessment of Clinton is especially notable:

She is smart, tough and savvy and has a capacity to learn from failure and adjust. But . . .  people are bored of her and feel like she has been talking at them forever. . . . She is a dull, grating, inauthentic, over-eager, insipid elitist with ideological blinders yet no particular vision and is likely to be reduced to running on a dubious promise of experience and competence while faking idealism and hope — a very common type of presidential contender in both parties, but one that almost always loses.

Her husband promised “a bridge to the 21st century.” She promises a bridge back to the 1990s. Or perhaps to 1988 and the “competence” candidacy of Michael Dukakis, which at least did not radiate, as hers will, a cloying aura of entitlement.

The energy in her party — in its nominating electorate — is well to her left, as will be the center of political gravity in the smaller and more liberal Democratic Senate caucus that will gather in January. There is, however, evidence that the Left is too untethered from reality to engage in effective politics. For example:

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental angst is implausibly focused on the supposed planetary menace of the Keystone XL pipeline. His NextGen Climate super PAC disbursed more than $60 million to candidates who shared — or pretended to in order to get his money — his obsession. The result? The gavel of the Environment and Public Works Committee is coming into the hands of Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe, the Senate’s most implacable skeptic about large-scale and predictable climate change driven by human behavior.

Is Clinton the person to maintain her party’s hold on young voters? Democrats, in their misplaced confidence in their voter-mobilization magic, targeted what have been called “basement grads.” These are some of the one-third of millennials (ages 18–31) who, because of the economy’s sluggishness in the sixth year of recovery, are living with their parents. Why did Democrats think they would be helped by luring anxious and disappointed young people out of basements and into voting booths?

The last time voters awarded a party a third consecutive presidential term was 1988, when George Herbert Walker Bush’s candidacy could be construed as promising something like a third Reagan term. A Clinton candidacy make sense if, but only if, in 24 months voters will be thinking: Let’s have a third Obama term.

— George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on November 09, 2014, 06:06:12 AM
"A Clinton candidacy make sense if, but only if, in 24 months voters will be thinking: Let’s have a third Obama term."

Having served as SoS may have not been a smart move in retrospect for her.  While it was supposed to give her the additional line on her resume that gives her more of a "dubious promise of experience and competence" it will closely tie her to Obama.  This may have been a strategic political gamble that now looks like a huge blunder.

Suppose she sat out the last 6 and next 2 years.  She could have been the ambassador for the Clinton Foundation instead (also dubious as to it's real intent) and she would have been able to avoid being tied to Obama.

Will sometimes has some great writings.  I used to agree with him maybe 80% of the time but now I think somewhat less.  I like this article too but I am a bit confused by it and not entirely clear what he means

I am not sure what he says about Hillary's liberalism on the political spectrum meter.  Is he saying she is not as liberal as Obama and the far left
base of the party?  I think she certainly is but she knows that is a political  loser so she like Bill feint to  a more "moderate" position more to towards the center.   

If she is not liberal enough (again I think she is) than why would she be an Obama 3rd term?    Not that I disagree with him but just there is a bit of inconsistency in what he is saying. 

In any case she is already desperately trying to separate herself from the one on foreign policy.   So far I don't think she has even tried on domestic policy.   

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 09, 2014, 10:04:19 AM
The SoS gig will be used to present her as "presidential".  She has plenty of establishment heavyweights sucking up to her on this point already and her agents are busy planting/spreading the word about how she disagreed with the decision not to leave troops in Iraq.

IMHO, a good and sound strategy for us is to paint her with Libya and the lead from behind overthrow of Kaddaffy that has led to a black hold of AQ anarchy.  Baraq jetted off to Brazil and Hillary, aided and abetted by Samantha Powers and Susan Rice put the whole thing together.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on November 09, 2014, 08:48:49 PM
Excellent points on the specifics which can be used to prove the more general point, but it is the general point that is crucial.  Her candidacy will be perceived as the third term of Obama, and that just got poll tested and failed miserably.

She ran in 2008 with the exact same positions as Obama on the exact same issues.  There wasn't a micron of distance between them.  She wanted the same healthcare plan and supported his.  She supported all the Fannie Mae, CRAp of government particpation and interference in housing finance and everything else.   She ran in support of the tax rate increases that triggered the collapse. She and Obama were both the co- de facto Senate and Congressional Leaders of the country from the peak to the meltdown, down it went, and she favored everything that went wrong.  She ran the commercials against Obama that questioned who was ready for the 3 am phone call.  She got that call at 5 pm - and did NOTHING.  She never even explained or apologized.  What difference does it make.  She has her fingerprints and DNA all over his failed foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and the setup for whatever goes wrong next.  To the extent that she wasn't in charge of negotiating things like the non-existent Status of Forces Agreement or anything else, it was because he never did trust her and instead relied on 24 special envoys who reported to the White House, to Pres. Obama or Valerie Jarrett maybe, but not to Hillary Clinton.

As ccp suggests, she is trial ballooning a little distance between herself and Obama and it is not going well.  She must choose between two opposites and both are career ending.  She is his third term, or she can run against the policies she supported and the incompetencies she was part of.  She supported nearly all of it so running against is phony, won't convince anyone, AND it will piss off the Obama machine that just won the last two Presidential elections.  They own the big voter ID, data mining, and get-out the-vote operations that are tied to the inner cities and expanding social spending roles of identified, government-dependent persons.  You don't piss off the (other) powers that be and then expect them to go all out for you.  It doesn't work that way.  

As George Will suggests, she was elected twice in 69 years, none in the last 10, and all in a totally, uncontested, 'blue' state.  The first time was with all the sympathies and popularity of being the First Lady and humiliated spouse, and the other was as an unchallenged incumbent in totally Democratic environment.  When she was tested, she failed.

She doesn't own the 98% black vote that Obama got.  They don't own the Hispanic vote anymore, it is slipping away at the margins.  At 69 and running on a return to the 90s, she doesn't own the young vote that already turned on them.  With gay marriage a fact, gays who happen to be enterprising and seek liberty are free to start voting pocketbook and economic issues.  She doesn't have a positive economic record.  She voted against the policies that succeeded earlier in her time in the Senate.  She tried foreign policy and failed badly.  

A resume is a list of capabilities and accomplishments, not a list of past work addresses.

Electing her as a presidential and national failure is not an advancement for women.  They are losing married women (and all men) by double digits.

She can't count on paybacks from Alison Grimes, or Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Begich, Michelle Nunn or Sen. Udall, Gov. Crist ... or Pres. Obama, Axelrod or Joe Biden.

There are SO many fundamentals running against her right now.  If the Clintons are so smart and shrewd, then they know all of this.

On the other hand, with as little as a friendly softball press conference bombshell, she can walk away from this and never face an unpleasant reporter or question, ever again.  I know everyone else says she's in, including herself talking to herself, but the other choice has got to look tempting.

Don't get me wrong.  Our side might be better off with her in and running against a known, failed candidate instead of seeing one more newcomer step forward and re-package the same old big government BS as if it is new and exciting again.
Title: Willie Brown: Hillary Clinton is going to lose
Post by: DougMacG on November 09, 2014, 10:13:23 PM
No intent to obsess on her, just saying that I am not the only one saying this...

"Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose."   - Willie Brown, SF Chronicle, 11/7/2014.
Title: Re: Willie Brown: Hillary Clinton is going to lose
Post by: G M on November 09, 2014, 10:48:42 PM
No intent to obsess on her, just saying that I am not the only one saying this...

"Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose."   - Willie Brown, SF Chronicle, 11/7/2014.

Doug's prediction looks better every day.
Title: As Doug was saying...
Post by: G M on November 10, 2014, 05:15:30 AM
Title: Hillary on Obama's Executive Order
Post by: DougMacG on November 24, 2014, 08:07:45 AM
"I was hopeful that the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would spur the House of Representatives to act, but they refused even to advance an alternative. Their abdication of responsibility paved the way for this executive action, which follows established precedent from presidents of both parties going back many decades."
    - Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Not exactly putting a lot of distance between herself and the failed President.

Friends and supporters of Hillary say she will make and announce her decision in mid January.  If she is out, people will need to know.  If she is in, that is too early.  As a candidate people might expect her to have a view on the issues.  The one above she come to regret.  On Keystone XL pipeline?  6 years of study and still no opinion.  Can a candidate for President really not have a position on something that very simply needs just a yes or a no?

Everything she is doing now looks like she is preparing to run.  And every piece of news and feedback that comes back to her says don't do it.
Title: Hillary gave video talking point before the White House gave them to Susan Rice
Post by: DougMacG on December 11, 2014, 08:49:35 AM
Sec Clinton:  I want to say a few words about the events unfolding in the world today. We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence.  I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries."

WSJ reported on her remarks at 11:34 am ET, Sep 13, 2012, Saturday morning.

The barrage of Susan Rice appearances occurred Sunday, Sept 14, 2012.  Those talking points were given to Rice on Saturday afternoon, Sept 13, 2014.  Rice was asked late in the day Friday to be the White House mouthpiece.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2014, 12:05:17 PM
Ummm , , , wouldn't this be legit with regard to events in countries other than Libya?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on December 11, 2014, 05:50:26 PM
Ummm , , , wouldn't this be legit with regard to events in countries other than Libya?

Interesting point.  Are you saying that makes it legit, or that it gives her cover?

The topic of the day, on that day, IMHO was Benghazi.
Pres Obama made an address with HRC at his side on Sept 12.
No mention of a video.  No mention of Yemen. etc.

By Sat. am with HRC speaking, we were back to the video.

Sunday, I watched Susan Rice to find out what happened in Benghazi, not various other protests.  Same with the questioners on the various shows.

Here is wikipedia on the "video" protests:
It was a big deal across many nations, however...  In Cairo, the leader/organizer didn't know the name of the video.  Egypt's prime minister Hesham Kandil said "a number" of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate.  None had seen the video; organizers were trying to show protesters the trailer.  Yemen was a copycat and most of the others followed that..  Benghazi was an organized terror attack.  My point is that this video did NOT cause these protests.  The video trailer was a pretense to protest.

Back to Hillary.  My point is that she and/or her people likely wrote the 'blame the video' script.  But let's take it the other way around; take her at her word.  The video IS to blame.  This is the prequel to empathy for the terrorists.  It is something WE are doing that makes them want to kill us.  In the Sept 13 remarks and when she met the deceased families, she vowed to get the video maker, not the terrorists.  That view is not a political winner.  Take down free speech; leave terrorists in place.  Seems to me these views or her sloppy expressions leave her politically culpable.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2014, 06:12:29 PM
I'm saying that your quote of her is in reference to Yemen and other countries.

SOMEONE got the idea that this meme could be blended into the Benghazi cover up, but this quote, as best as I can tell, proves nothing with regard to whom that may have been.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on December 12, 2014, 07:43:29 AM
I'm saying that your quote of her is in reference to Yemen and other countries.

SOMEONE got the idea that this meme could be blended into the Benghazi cover up, but this quote, as best as I can tell, proves nothing with regard to whom that may have been.

Fair enough.  Same thing here, HRC speaking at the Benghazi killings memorial: of the memorial service
Clinton comments occur from 16:25-17:45:
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with."

Crafty, her separation of these events is technically valid, but her effort to merge them is pathological IMHO.  It took me multiple readings of this to see that separation as she stood over the caskets from Benghazi.

She reportedly told the victims families, we will get the people responsible for this video. No separation there.

If this isn't smoking gun material, it is at least a peak into a character flaw you wouldn't want (again) in a President.  Unlike Susan Rice, she can't say they gave me the talking points.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 12, 2014, 09:41:30 AM
"Crafty, her separation of these events is technically valid"

How , , , Clintonesque of her  :lol:

"but her effort to merge them is pathological IMHO."

I would say it is amorally purposeful.

"It took me multiple readings of this to see that separation as she stood over the caskets from Benghazi."

Precisely her intention I suspect.

"She reportedly told the victims families, we will get the people responsible for this video. No separation there."

EXACLTY SO!!!  I have hammered this point for quite some time now.


"If this isn't smoking gun material,"

It is.

"it is at least a peak into a character flaw you wouldn't want (again) in a President."

EXACTLY SO.  For me, this is the ideal point o the spear to use on her with regard to Benghazi.

Title: Bill Clinton has his own Bill Cosby problem
Post by: DougMacG on December 17, 2014, 08:41:28 AM
I wonder if the Clinon's want the Bill Cosby story to continue to rise throughout the campaign?  The Statute of Limitations does not prevent one's public image from being destroyed.  If they go through with this, it's hard to say which Clinton scandal or weakness will finally catch up with them.

Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past

The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Oddly, the rationale for the Hillary Clinton campaign is empowerment of women.  People's tolerance of all this, especially Hillary's, is abominable.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on December 17, 2014, 01:29:20 PM
If you have a D next to your name, it isn't really rape.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 19, 2014, 02:34:02 AM
I can't blame Bill for straying, after all, look at Hillary (and Huma Abedin).  As the joke goes, Bill and Hillary met when they were dating the same girl in law school.

That said, the examples listed are far from complete; missing are some of the most sordid:

a) Paula Jones, a state employee brought to Governor Clinton's presence by a state trooper;

b) I forget her name (Juanita Broderick or something like that) but she was a big fundraiser and her husband worked for Bill.  Something had happened and she was afraid for her husband's job and she came to the White House to plead for it.  Working from memory, she has formally stated that Clinton pushed her up against the wall and forcefully groped her.  Turns out that while she was there, her husband was commiting suicide.

c) there's plenty more.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on December 19, 2014, 08:05:11 AM
"I forget her name... but she was a big fundraiser and her husband worked for Bill.  Something had happened and she was afraid for her husband's job and she came to the White House to plead for it.  Working from memory, she has formally stated that Clinton pushed her up against the wall and forcefully groped her.  Turns out that while she was there, her husband was commiting suicide."

Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, on March 15, 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993, during his first term as President.  Willey's second husband, Edward E. Willey Jr., committed suicide on November 29, 1993 — the day she claimed Clinton's sexual misconduct took place.

Who knows the veracity of that story or any one encounter.  The point with the analogy to Bill Cosby is that there is too many unrelated incidents in a pattern to just shrug it off.  The point with Hillary Clinton is that she knew or she should have known.  Juanita Broaddrick alleged very strongly that Hillary knew.

NBC News held the Lisa Myers Juanita Broaddrick interview for 35 days, played it opposite the Grammys - after the Senate had acquitted Clinton in his impeachment trial.

There was Whitewater, the FBI files scandal, travelgate, and the hurried removal of documents from Vince Foster's office.  There was the failure of her healthcare task force and of all their own policies before adopting the success of the Gingrich initiatives.  But none of it matters.
Title: Hillary straddles futures, , , commodity futures that is.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 19, 2014, 04:59:29 PM
Thanks for finding the info on Kathleen Wiley.

Also, amongst our long and still very incomplete list is the $97,000 made from $3,000 in commodities futures matter.  There was a very long and very serious piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal written by the man who was the IRS's attorney for tax fraud in commodities futures at the time.  I WOULD TRULY LOVE TO GET MY HAND'S ON THIS PIECE.  IT IS VERY POWERFUL.

Working from memory, the gist of it was this:

It occurred while Hillary's husband was running for governor of Arkansas.  This was the late 70s and the top tax rate was 70%.  In this environment it made sense to play lots of games to minimize taxes.  One of them was called a "straddle" which meant that the high income earner bought both buy and sell futures.  Why?  Wouldn't the gain on one offset the loss on the other?  Yes, BUT the losing trade would be taken in December (offsetting income tax to be paid by the following April 15, whereas the gain would be taken in January, with the tax thereon not to be paid by the April 15th of the following year.  In other words the 70% that was to be paid in taxes was availble from making money for 15 months.

This is the sort of nonsense to which the Regan tax rate cuts effectively put an end.

In Hillary's case in went like this:

She purchased her initial contracts (i.e.made her initial bets) in chicken feed grain without actually meeting SEC requirements for this high risk sort of investment at a brokerage firm that also represented Tyson Foods, the largest employer in the state of Arkansas.  Her bets were in very short term trades (30 days or less).  Coincidentally, the reporting requirements for this sort of trade were essentially non-existant and the federal commission in charge of this sort of things was notorious for usually being asleep at the switch anyway.   However, in a rare moment of being awake, the commission had charged the brokerage firm in question with allocating winning and losing contracts at the end of the day.   In the course of a few months Hillary, an attorney (focused at servicing banks IIRC) had miraculously profited in trading short term chicken feed contracts (an area of obvious expertise for Tyson Foods) over 3,000% (double check my math here!).  Her miraculous run came to an end shortly before Bill was elected governor.

Translating this into ordinary English:   

Tyson Foods, the largest employer in the State of Arkansas, funnelled $97,000 (laundered too!) into the pocket of the wife of the next governor via winning and losing trades that were allocated at the end of the day by a small brokerage firm that was not likely to turn down this request from its largest client.
Title: Ready for Hillary? Or not.
Post by: DougMacG on January 05, 2015, 10:39:52 AM
It's coming down to crunch time for my bet with ccp: 
She won't run. If she runs, she won't win the endorsement. If endorsed, she won't win.

Odd that she is such a shoe-in yet more than 20 Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against her!

Coverage is starting to slip the other way.  She had better jump in quickly to reverse that!

Gail Collins, liberal writer at the NY Times, in "Hillary versus History":
"Do you think she contemplates the fact that no Democrat has been elected to succeed another Democrat since James Buchanan in 1856?"
"Did I mention that Buchanan (160 years prior to 2016) was also the last former secretary of state elected president?"

Many speculating now that Hillary won't run, will lose, or fail liberals, would be better off on the Supreme Court... (posted previously);_ylt=A0LEViQizKpUrAsAoR8PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnV2cXQwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, "I'm not convinced she's going to run"

The fact is that Hillary Clinton learned so many lessons from her surprising 2008 defeat that she’s repeating each of them all over again. Once more she is running as the overconfident, inevitable nominee with safe speeches filled with mush and a bloated campaign staff that already is leaking against each other in the press.

Ten other Democrats wait to see if Hillary runs for president – but who would benefit most if she decides to stay out?

CBS News on New Years Day: What if Hillary Clinton doesn't run for president?  "Is it possible?"  OMG, LOL.

The real determinants will be health, and beauty - so to speak.  It will come down to health issues we don't know about as well as her view of how long and how well the latest cosmetic surgery efforts will hold up.  She will not be out of the public eye for extended periods again for ten painful years - unless she says out now.
I do not mean to be critical of the look of a young woman approaching 70; it is just quite clear that SHE is not comfortable with her look as she continually changes it.  I have never seen a serious and successful candidate for President put on weight just before entering a grueling 1.5 year campaign and taking the toughest job in the world.  Again, not critical, just reporting what I see.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on January 05, 2015, 12:16:04 PM
The potential for Bill being connected to another scandal doesn't help either.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 06, 2015, 09:23:36 AM
This could turn into something fun , , ,
Title: What America needs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2015, 02:16:14 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2015, 05:43:18 PM
Latest news in the Hillary drama, they have hired the North American marketing manager of CocaCola to join the campaign. 
What are they planning to sell??

Maybe it was Bill that hired her:

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 14, 2015, 09:48:28 AM
Clinton's Paris Blunder
Published on on January 13, 2015
The minute that she heard about the march against terrorism in Paris, Hillary Clinton should have hopped on one of her Wall Street friends' private jets and rushed to France.

Think of the photo op and its political meaning. The former secretary of State and, perhaps, future president of the United States marching arm in arm with world leaders to protest the vicious attacks in the city of light. Not President Obama. Not Secretary of State John Kerry. Not Vice President Biden. But Clinton -- on her own.

Her presence would have made her the star of the show, particularly once it became apparent she was there as a private citizen, not at the instruction -- and without the approval -- of the president. It would have marked her debut in a new role on the world stage. The optics of her marching in solidarity with the victims of terror would have been a defining one for her candidacy.

Without differing from Obama on hard issues of policy and without staking out hawkish ground in the third Iraq War, Clinton would have sent a clear message to the world, saying "I am tough on terror."

Many, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have traced the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria to Obama's (and Clinton's) failure to leave a residual garrison of troops in Iraq after our withdrawal there. This accusation makes Clinton vulnerable on the terrorism issue. What better way to put that liability behind her than to show up while her much-criticized former boss stayed home?

Female candidates for president are always being questioned on their capacity to be adequate commanders in chief. Recognizing this danger, Clinton alertly secured a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee right after 9/11. This realization likely led to her vote for the Iraq War and her continued support of the conflict right up to the primaries of 2008.

Paris was a chance for Clinton to show toughness without alienating the left. A way to demonstrate that she would go the extra mile -- literally -- to fight terror that would not get her in trouble with her party's liberal wing.

And she blew it.

The question is, why didn't she go?

The most likely explanation is that she didn't really think it through. Political inertia may have set in. She needed to be acted on by an outside force.

What about Bill Clinton? We know that he would have gone to Paris in a heartbeat were he still president. But he was in LA with his Hollywood pals. There are reports that he's in the dog house after stories of his dalliances with Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, Hillary Clinton may be giving him the silent treatment, as is her wont when she gets angry over his indiscretions.

Without her husband, Hillary Clinton is a bureaucratic thinker. Surrounded only by her old State Department cronies, all wedded to the status quo of American diplomacy and unwilling to violate protocol by upstaging the president, there is no thinking outside the box. The fact is that none of her advisers, with the exception of Bill Clinton, had the heft to get her to reconsider her plans and take a detour to Paris. There is nobody on her staff with that kind of clout or independence of thought. Hillary Clinton is so burdened down with insider staff and stuff, she can't move with dexterity. She is not nimble any more.

And then there was the Obama problem. Reluctant to break with the president and used to the habit of obedience and playing with the team, Clinton didn't dare strike out on her own. She acted like she was still subject to his discipline. If she is to run for president, she'd better get over it.

What an opportunity she missed! And what a flaw in her thinking and staffing it reveals!
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 21, 2015, 04:24:35 PM
Obama's Left-Wing Trap
Published on on January 20, 2015

The next time you run into Hillary Clinton, ask her how she feels about President Obama's tax proposals in his State of the Union speech. Does she want to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent? How about the fee on financial institutions?

And, while she's in the mood to answer questions, try asking about the bill to raise the definition of full-time work under ObamaCare to 40 hours. Or the Keystone XL pipeline? Or cutting off aid to the Palestinians if they go after Israel in the International Criminal Court? Or new sanctions on Iran? Or, for that matter, his amnesty for illegal immigrants?

The uncommon burst of post-election activity (i.e., leftist liberation) that has come over Obama since he presided over the annihilation of the Democrats' Senate majority is putting Clinton in a tough spot. Unless she opts out pretty quickly and pretty often, she will find that her 2016 platform has been written for her ... and that it's way too far to the left to run on.

We can expect Obama to spend whatever time he devotes to the presidency in his remaining two years focused on selling his new radical left-wing agenda to America. He won't succeed, but he will be able to sell it to the left. Liberals will be agog over his class warfare and his "damn Congress, full speed ahead" attitude. Finally, they are getting the kind of presidential leadership they have pined for since he was elected.

He is not just making proposals. Obama is staking out a left-wing agenda that will play in our politics for decades hence. The liberal wish list has scarcely been updated since the days of Johnson or even Truman. Now, Obama is carrying income redistribution to a whole new level, articulating a vision that will set liberal hearts aflutter for years hence.

That poses a big problem for Clinton. If she embraces this agenda, she types herself as way too far left of center. But if she rejects it, she will turn off liberals and encourage them to sit it out in 2016.

Clinton, for her part, seems to have taken a Trappist vow of silence, as she remains holed up and inaccessible while avoiding saying much of anything. That formula would serve her well if the president could keep his mouth shut. But with his constant new proposals and his regulatory agencies running amok with new regulations, Clinton's silence can and will be read as assent, trapping her in an ultra-left agenda of which the vast bulk of the voters strongly disapprove.

Clinton's 19th century-style, front-porch campaign, where she rarely ventures forth to answer questions, is also leaving her out of the action. She looks irrelevant and, as Obama stirs passions with his regulations and proposals, she seems to lack conviction by her silence.

Surrogates for lame-duck presidents have always had a tough time when they run on their own. Remember how Hubert Humphrey embraced President Lyndon Johnson's bombing pause in 1968 only to be left high and dry when it failed to bring Hanoi to the negotiating table? Candidate George H.W. Bush kept tripping over Ronald Reagan's changing explanations of his role in Iran-Contra, and Al Gore tore his hair out over his boss' shifting stories about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Obama's activist agenda is not making Clinton's life any easier.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on January 22, 2015, 08:01:28 AM
Morris is wrong, again.   The Clinton machine will come roaring out of the gates.  I am not saying she will win the in '16 since that is a long time from now and who knows what will happen.  Just that they know what Morris knows and of course they will be ready. 

My guess is she will avoid comparisons to Brockster and his policies and focus on her own version of radicalism.   
Title: Pentagon distrusted Hillary on Libya, contacted Kadaffy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2015, 08:52:20 PM

BTW, Rand Paul made a point the other night worth noting.  Kadaffy gave up his nuke program to us and look what happened to him.  Why would Iran trust us now?
Title: Re: Pentagon distrusted Hillary on Libya, contacted Kadaffy
Post by: G M on January 29, 2015, 06:46:22 AM

BTW, Rand Paul made a point the other night worth noting.  Kadaffy gave up his nuke program to us and look what happened to him.  Why would Iran trust us now?

No one will. Because of the dems, we are a weak enemy and a treacherous ally.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on January 29, 2015, 07:13:49 AM
How many times did we abandon the Kurds?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on January 29, 2015, 08:06:13 AM
I still doubt most care about political ideology and worse yet more and more think Communism or some form of it is a good thing but:
Title: Re: Pentagon distrusted Hillary on Libya, contacted Kadaffy
Post by: DougMacG on January 29, 2015, 08:20:51 AM
BTW, Rand Paul made a point the other night worth noting.  Kadaffy gave up his nuke program to us and look what happened to him.  Why would Iran trust us now?
No one will. Because of the dems, we are a weak enemy and a treacherous ally.

President Obama is Iran's greatest ally, stopping the two countries that would attack their nuclear facilities from doing so.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on January 29, 2015, 08:34:32 AM
Hugh Hewitt, who I like, is sure that Hillary is running and is the Dem nominee and says the R candidate needs to study and be an expert on the records of both Bill and Hillary Clinton (long, sordid, and often criminal history) in order to win.  (The DB forum could be offered up as a resource.)  Hewitt takes liberal and media guests on his radio show and in particular likes to pin them down on what are her accomplishments.  On the release of a most recent Hillary biography, the author could not name a positive accomplishment of hers at State.

Hewitt:  "...the GOP nominee should be the individual best positioned to beat her, which means first knowing her history and especially her record at State and her time as the architect of Obamacare 1.0 from 1993-1994. It means knowing her endorsement of the president's immigration executive order and her Twitter applause of the president's State of the Union including its doomed plan to tax 529 plans.
Yes, it means even reading her ghastly and grindingly dull memoirs. And it means preparing, memorizing and delivering a concise recollection of the Bill Clinton years, one that always ends as his tenure did with the name Marc Rich.
To be the GOP nominee coming out of Cleveland should require knowing everything about Hillary and Bill and being able to effortlessly detail her almost unbelievable record of failing upwards over her twenty-five years in the Beltway."

I love his summation of her career, "failing upwards".

Hewitt, continued:  "It is a huge advantage for the GOP to know their opponent this far out."  ...  "Every great coach --Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, yes, even Belichick-- would kill for a year and a half to prepare a game plan for one opponent on whom the tape in the vault is endless."
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2015, 08:41:01 AM
Title: True but so what?
Post by: ccp on January 29, 2015, 09:26:21 AM
"Every great coach --Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, yes, even Belichick-- would kill for a year and a half to prepare a game plan for one opponent on whom the tape in the vault is endless."

OK but we have already witnessed how negatives alone will not and cannot defeat the Clintons.  Remember when Rush gave Bill the ultimate compliment when he said we only get a politician like Bill once every century after he came up roses despite all his BS?

One speech, a few messages that resonate with the right voters is all it takes to erase, wash away, obliterate all the past BS.  It seems many voters (swingers at least) simply do not care about ideology, or "personal" lives, integrity, honesty or lying or just plain wrong policies.  As long as their heart and purse strings are tugged just a tad......

Did anyone else read the Bill Cosby fan who after his show said he didn't care about all the allegations against the comedian because that was his "personal life".

Like I said Bill Clinton is by far one of the wrost President's in history in my view because of the way he dumbed down any sense of integrity, honor, honesty.

So I guess if Hitler was funny than so who should care about his personal life.  Just go see his show and laugh.

How Cosby got away with this for so long is extraordinarily an injustice.  He belongs in jail for the remainder of his life.

There is no way this guy didn't do much of what is claimed against him.

Title: Hillary getting trapped by Iran Sanctions issue
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2015, 09:42:37 AM
Title: Did Hillary help block peace offer from Kadaffy?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2015, 01:05:39 AM
Title: Hillary the gun runner?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 02, 2015, 08:27:06 AM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 02, 2015, 05:10:19 PM



By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Updated: 7:29 p.m. on Monday, February 2, 2015

The chairman of a special House committee created to investigate the 2012 Benghazi tragedy on Monday instructed his staff to review secretly recorded tapes and intelligence reports that detail Hillary Rodham Clinton’s role in advocating and executing the war in Libya, opening the door for a possible expansion of his probe.

Rep. Trey Gowdy’s decision to seek a review of the materials, first highlighted in a series of Washington Times stories last week, carries consequences for the 2016 election in which Mrs. Clinton is expected to seek the presidency. It could also move the committee to examine the strained relationship between the State Department and Pentagon, which sharply disagreed over the 2011 war in Libya and the response to the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi a year later.

The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support Mrs. Clinton’s story of an impending genocide in Libya that she used to sell the war against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. The newspaper also unveiled secretly recorded tapes from Libya that showed that the Pentagon and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich so distrusted her stewardship of the war that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime.

SEE ALSO: Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war

The tapes included candid conversations and allegations that Mrs. Clinton took the U.S. to war on false pretenses and was not listening to the advice of military commanders or career intelligence officers.

“Chairman Gowdy and the committee are aware of the details reported by The Washington Times, and we are reviewing them as part of the committee’s inquiry into Benghazi,” Benghazi Committee spokesman Jamal Ware announced Monday.

The emergence of the tapes and a new line of inquiry immediately had repercussions, especially on the political front where the 2016 president race has heated up.

SEE ALSO: Hillary Clinton’s ‘WMD’ moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a 2016 GOP hopeful who has been intensely critical of Mrs. Clinton’s handling of the 2011 Libya intervention, said the stories demonstrate she is not the right person to lead the country or the nation’s military.

“Hillary’s judgment has to be questioned – her eagerness for war in Libya should preclude her from being considered the next Commander in Chief,” said Sen. Paul, who opposed the Libyan intervention at the onset.

“We want someone in that office with wisdom and better judgment… We created chaos in Libya – as a result many arms have gone to Syria which are now aiding jihadi terrorists. I couldn’t fathom how Hillary Clinton could become Commander and Chief after this,” he added.

Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman have declined any comment about the tapes.

The Times reported that on one of the tapes, a Pentagon liaison told a Gadhafi aide that Army Gen. Charles Jacoby, a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it,” the Pentagon liaison said, offering a candid assessment of tensions within the Obama administration.

“I can tell you that the President is not getting accurate information so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him… I think about a way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Admiral Mullen to get him information.”

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, said the Pentagon’s actions were “highly unusual,” but said that it would make sense for the Pentagon to want to make sure their Commander in Chief was getting accurate information.

“I think it’s unusual to have the military say wait a minute, that’s not true,” Mr. Poe said in a telephone interview with the Times. “You have a false report from the Secretary of State, and then the military holding a completely different view of what’s taking place.

“They wanted [the president] to have facts – facts as opposed to what Secretary Clinton was hoping the facts would be; that Moammar Gadhafi was killing innocent women and children. That was was a false narrative. So, it would make sense that they would want to get that information straight to the president and not go through the Secretary of State,” he added

Story Continues →
Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Continued from page 1

In reaction to the Times final installment of the series on Monday, which revealed secret Libyan intelligence reports that linked NATO supported rebels to al-Qaeda, Rep. Louie Gohmert said the news was not a complete surprise.

“During the Obama-Clinton hunger to enter a bombing war in Libya, some of us knew the rebels included al-Qaeda but we did not know the full extent of their involvement,” he said. “So we pleaded for U.S. restraint. With bombing in their heart and radical Islamists whispering in their ears, the Obama-Clinton team would not even entertain offers of a ceasefire and peaceful transition of power. While acting under U.N. approval to prevent atrocities, it appears the Obama-Clinton bombing barrages caused atrocities that sent a country into chaos which is continuing today.”

The Times series about the Libyan intervention was also picked up across Atlantic.

Britain’s Daily Mail described the story as “stunning” declaring that, “[Sec.] Clinton will face tough questions about her march to war against Moammar Gadhafi if she runs for president.”

Mr. Poe said that he believes the series will prompt new questions, especially with the current state of military and political affairs in Libya.

“As far as I’m concerned Benghazi is not going away,” Mr. Poe said. “That the U.S. would give in and arm rebels and criminals to overthrow Col. Gadhafi, and then mislead the world on that is shameful. We now have chaos in Libya… it’s the U.S.’ undoing of a country. Gadhafi was no saint, but what we have now are gangsters and jihadists running the country. We have chaos because the US intervened in a deceitful way.

“Unfortunately, the administration is making more of an effort to protect Hillary Clinton’s involvement than they are in finding out the truth about what was really behind the overthrow of Gaddafi by the U.S.”

Read more:
Title: Hillary's "lead" now below the margin of error, support below 50%
Post by: DougMacG on February 02, 2015, 08:32:25 PM
Unfavorables already surpass favorables.

Nowhere to go from here, but - further down!
Title: Understandable confusion
Post by: G M on February 04, 2015, 06:50:07 AM

For a second, I thought this was about Hillary.
Title: Hillary under fire
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 05, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
Title: Never trust a hag whose eyes are crooked
Post by: ccp on February 06, 2015, 08:08:54 PM
Look at her eyes.  They are not conjugate.  This could be from a cranial nerve defect from  a stroke:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 07, 2015, 10:56:26 AM
Two items:

The leftist-spun vaccine debacle brought presumed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton out of the shadows. Taking a stab at "anti-science" conservatives, she tweeted, "The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids." Like any good two-faced leftist, Hillary was singing a different tune in 2008 when she promised to "make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." That might explain Team Clinton's choice for family practitioner, who agreed with the old Hillary but not the new. The Daily Caller reveals, "A doctor who was profiled by The New York Times for his close personal and professional relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton has expressed skepticism about vaccines and touted research that found a link between childhood vaccinations and autism." Dr. Mark Hyman, together with co-author Robert Kennedy Jr., expounded on this suspicion in "Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak." According to the Caller, "In the book and in a recent TV appearance on 'Dr. Oz,' Hyman and Kennedy expressed concern that the mercury in thimerosal, a preservative used in some vaccines, is associated with autism, developmental delays and certain illnesses." As we previously noted, parents should research the issue and be as knowledgeable as possible. That includes finding a trustworthy doctor. The Clintons don't seem to have done so. But remember: This is a Republican problem

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on February 07, 2015, 11:29:23 AM
While I think everyone should be vaccinated I don't like the idea that people are forced to be vaccinated or else the children cannot go to school etc.

OTOH many colleges already REQUIRE proof of immunity or getting a booster vaccine to be able to attend.

Why don't liberals outlaw cigarettes?  Far, far more dangerous?

Title: Might Hillary Stay Out?
Post by: DougMacG on February 07, 2015, 07:31:34 PM
ccp, previously:  "Look at her eyes.  They are not conjugate.  This could be from a cranial nerve defect from  a stroke:"

I wish her all the best of health, but it is a real possibility that she is not up to this.
Article below could have been lifted from the forum...   :wink:

Sure, she is hiring staff and is allegedly gearing up.  But her history is that she only picks easy, safe contests.  This race will be anything but easy.

From the article:  "Republicans will not say that; the camera, however, will.  Appearances mean everything in American politics, and Hillary will be the most unappealing presidential nominee since William Howard Taft more than a century ago."

By comparing her (favorably) with Taft, he removes the gender aspect of the observation.  She is the one obsessed with her looks, not that it is relevant to governing.  She always had the changing hair styles, the press conference in pink, etc.  Whether it is botched plastic surgery or makeup )see same photo), I wonder what percent of American televisions are now high-def?  And now she needs an ever so slightly roomier pantsuit. Most successful candidates condition physically for this brutal race and the job that follows if successful as a candidate.  But Hillary Clinton has become comfortable with the lifestyle of already winning her battles rather than preparing for the biggest one. 

Another thought, if Brian Williams is unfit to read news, how is Hillary credible as Commander in Chief, caught in the same crime?  We think all Clinton's can ride out all scandals, but we have not seen all the scandals yet.  As former Clinton adviser David Geffen said, Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it is troubling."
Back to the American Thinker this past week:

February 4, 2015
Might Hillary Stay Out?
By Bruce Walker
Democrats have a pathetic bench.  While the GOP can look at young and bright faces like Walker, Cruz, Rand, Rubio, Jindal, Martinez, Haley, and Pence, which Democrats besides Hillary have a realistic shot at winning the White House?

Elizabeth Warren is an Ivy-League leftist who has won precisely one election, in Massachusetts.  She is almost as old as Hillary, and although, at only about $14 million, she is not nearly as rich as Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, Warren still looks utterly disconnected from the vast majority of America.
Joe Biden?  He is a walking gaffe machine whose principal political asset is that he seems utterly hapless and confused.  Biden in the presidential debates would almost certainly make several absurd and damaging slips.  America will be sick to death of Obama by 2016, and his principal stooge, Biden, will inherit all this national nausea.

Whom else can Democrats turn to as their champion?  Jerry Brown is ancient, and he has held just about every elective office possible in California.  He looks and acts just like a tired career politician born into a political dynasty.  Andrew Cuomo is also a dynastic heir who offers nothing at all to the America outside the Northeast.

The reality for Democrats is that decades of playing safe, enforcing a sort of crushing ideological conformity, and avoiding real fights like the Mafia avoids public spats have left them with a limited number of potential nominees for the presidency.

Democrats need Hillary, but does she need them?  Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton has always lusted for power, for wealth, and for influence – that is why she stayed in a loveless marriage to a despicable cad like Bill so long – but there is another aspect to this vain, shallow creature.

Hillary abhors personal risk.  It was Bill, not Hillary, who ran for Congress, for Arkansas attorney general, and for governor in Arkansas.  Hillary was safely perched in the Rose Law Firm, gaining money and position at minimal personal risk.  Hillary has been involved as a candidate in only three contests: New York Senate race in 2000, New York Senate re-election in 2006, and the Democrat nomination race of 2008.  She always picked the easiest, safest contests.

So in 2000, Hillary, an Illinois native and an Arkansas expatriate who had never really lived in New York, decided to run for office from this safest of Democrat strongholds.  She was, of course, still first lady as well.  She shoved aside a real New Yorker, Nita Lowery, and faced a relatively weak Rick Lazio in the general election.  And the 2006 midterm was a Democrat year, so Clinton faced no real battles for re-election to the Senate, either.

The 2008 presidential race was supposed to be her turn, but she hamstrung herself with a lame performance, against which not even all the powers of a past two-term president and all the fawning exposure the leftist media had given her could prevail.

Why might Hillary decide against running next year?

First, the country will be sicker of Obama than even in 2014, which means that she would have to run away from him to shake that unpopularity.  There is no safe way for her to do that without potentially turning off millions of black voters, which would cost Democrats across the board in 2016.

Second, however tired folks are of Republicans, they are even more tired of Democrats.  Not since FDR and the New Deal have Democrats been viewed so negatively by voters.  At every level of government, state and congressional, except the White House, Democrats are a distinct minority.

Third, she will be almost 70 in 2016.  She is as familiar to Americans as a tattered house slipper.  Republicans will not say that; the camera, however, will.  Appearances mean everything in American politics, and Hillary will be the most unappealing presidential nominee since William Howard Taft more than a century ago.

What this means is that Hillary may not choose to run in 2016.  If she runs and fails, then her political life and all the easy money she gets from dull speeches could be over.  Leftists like Hillary, of course, care only about themselves.  They have no grand principles at all.  So the only real question is this: can Hillary, personally, profit more from jumping into the 2016 presidential race or “magnanimously” stepping aside?  Don’t be surprised if she decides that she is better off with the latter.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on February 07, 2015, 07:53:45 PM
See my post under political rants.  I read Doug's post after that post.

"As former Clinton adviser David Geffen said, Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it is troubling."

Is it really true that ALL politicians lie?   The only possible lie Reagan may have told is about the Iran Contra mess.   Oliver North said, " he knew".    I admit I lament this if true but truthfully I am not aware of ANY OTHER hint that he ever lied.

Obama lies with even more chutzpah than Clinton.  And more sinisterly.  Yet as long he tows the liberal Democrat line it is no biggie.

There has to be some way to move the ethics and honor and culture back to lying is NOT tolerable.  If we cannot know our leaders are telling us the truth than I don't get how we can have country.

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on February 07, 2015, 08:31:19 PM
See my post under political rants.  I read Doug's post after that post.

"As former Clinton adviser David Geffen said, Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it is troubling."

Is it really true that ALL politicians lie? ...

That perspective comes from a former Clinton adviser.  I think he meant all liberal politicians have to lie and deceive to make sense of liberalism.

Reagan claimed he never colored his hair at 80, meaning none of your damn business.  But when he said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall, he meant it.  It's not that anyone is perfect, but that these politicians have different levels of authenticity, not always easy to detect at first.  Reagan was authentic.

When people in the real world lie to me, I often assume its the truth because I am honest and don't think to doubt them.  (Obama will be a uniter.)  But once I see they are dishonest, I can usually go back and recognize the other lies that have accumulated. Since we know Hillary is a liar, we know there are other lies out there and more to come that will unravel if held to scrutiny. 

Enter Tray Gowdy, if not the watchdog media.
Title: The Lying Clintons, Youtube, Hillary, " landing under sniper fire", exposed.
Post by: DougMacG on February 10, 2015, 12:59:54 PM
Also in 2016 Presidential, Clinton mistakes already made becoming more relevant:

Bringing this forward, Hillary, "I remember landing under sniper fire", "ran with our heads down".  "That was just sleep deprivation, or something."

Funny thing is that the CBS reporter exposing her falsehood is Cheryl Attkisson! 

Funnier yet, here is Brian Williams covering it!
The flap...over the non-existent sniper fire...
Title: Hillbillary Clinton, The Twitter President?
Post by: DougMacG on February 11, 2015, 09:31:54 AM
Where is she, by the way.  The next President doesn't do public appearances, comment on events, take a stand on issues?  I understand the need to give us all a break from Hillary fatigue, but how does she do that later as President?

I assume she is either getting warranty service on 'work done', or addressing a health issue.  Either way, if she prefers to be out of the limelight, she should know - we like her best off the public stage too.
Title: Hillbillary Clinton for VEEP?? Minneapolis StarTribune
Post by: DougMacG on February 15, 2015, 01:39:55 PM
It is amazing that the following attack on HRC from the left was printed today, top, front, center of the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sunday Opinion section.  The region's largest newspaper is never more the a quarter note out of step with the NYT and the DNC. 

Excerpting the anti-Hillary part;

Top of the ticket to ya, Sen. Warren
Article by: BONNIE BLODGETT Minneapolis StarTribune, February 13, 2015
Why I support Elizabeth Warren for president (with Hillary Clinton as running mate).
Unlike our current president, Warren has plenty of experience playing hardball on behalf of the average American. She’s 65 years old. Her youthful appearance is one reason why she should be at the top of a Warren-Clinton ticket. Looks matter. I have no idea if Warren lifts weights or runs marathons, but Hillary Clinton, while remarkably well-preserved for a woman pushing the big 7-0, looks exhausted.

And besides, Clinton had her chance six years ago, a chance she blew when Barack Obama made her cry on national TV.

Call me coldhearted, but I soured on Mrs. Clinton long before she showed she had feelings. The honeymoon was over for me when she flouted custom and joined her husband’s inner circle of White House policy advisers. She was apparently not content to be the kind of low-profile sounding board that Rosalynn Carter and Nancy Reagan had been for their spouses. Eleanor Roosevelt wasn’t shy about sharing her opinions with FDR, but she never presented herself publicly as an adjunct Cabinet member.

I was amazed at the public’s nonresponse when President Bill Clinton named his wife the nation’s first health care czar. The job wasn’t in the party platform. It didn’t show up in any of her husband’s stump speeches. Nor did Mrs. Clinton’s knowledge of health care run deep. A quick study, she picked up just enough to run more savvy reformers’ hopes off a cliff.

Hillary seemed to have made a devil’s bargain with Bill: I’ll keep quiet about Gennifer Flowers (and all the others) if you remember that your wife has worked just as hard as you have to further your career. It’s payback time.

Monica Lewinsky turned out to be Bill Clinton’s most precious gift to his goal-oriented missus. Hillary’s forbearance gave her a lock on the women’s vote. Jews admired her, too, and called her a mensch. (She already had her eye on the New York Senate seat.) Southerners will always stand by a woman who stands by her man.

She was idolized overseas. I remember dining at a Paris restaurant during the height of the impeachment ordeal. A stylish sixty-something couple (she was his mistress) seated next to me found out that I was American and proceeded to wax rhapsodic about “your wonderful first lady” while heaping contempt on Americans’ hypocrisy in matters of love.

I have no quarrel with a woman who chooses to stay married to a philandering husband. What really bothers me is the way Clinton abandoned her political principles in order to stay in the game. After Bill left office, she chose to represent a state she’d never lived in and ran a hawkish, pro-business campaign.

I support Warren for president because — let’s face it — Clinton has baggage. Does anyone even know what Warren’s husband looks like?

Clinton wasn’t wrong to believe our health care system sucked. She was wrong to believe she could craft an alternative including for-profit insurers that would also be efficient and fair. Unlike Eleanor Roosevelt, whom FDR himself described as his conscience and goad, Clinton uttered not a word of protest against her husband’s abrupt rightward shift midway through his first term. She then capitalized on it when she needed Wall Street’s approval in her run for Senate. NAFTA and other trade agreements that sacrificed millions of American manufacturing jobs are as much her legacy as his. So is the now-infamous decision to dismantle Roosevelt-era curbs on banking, including Glass-Steagall, the regulation prohibiting big commercial banks like Wells Fargo from operating like investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to name two of the most notorious, thus setting in motion the mortgage crisis.

It was also on the Clintons’ watch that auto and oil companies persuaded Congress that precious jobs would be lost if light trucks were not excluded from stringent fuel-efficiency (CAFE) standards passed in 1975. Enter the era of the gas-guzzling SUV. The 1995 exemption came up again five years later. Buoyed by a close vote in the Republican-held Senate, environmentalists asked the president for a veto. They didn’t get it.

“In the end,” wrote a reporter at the time, “political considerations of the most narrow kind trumped whatever environmental arguments the White House may have had with respect to lifting the freeze on CAFE standards. SUVs, minivans, and pickups now account for 50 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S., a figure expected to rise in the years to come.”

Warren is willing to veto the Keystone pipeline because … it’s the planet, stupid.

“We are on the cusp of a climate crisis — a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy, and our world,” she wrote to members of the League of Conservation Voters. “But we are also at a moment of great opportunity, where investment, smart regulations, and real commitment could move us boldly into the future. Over the next ten years, oil and gas companies will suck down $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. We know they’re going to fight tooth and nail to protect — or even expand — those special breaks.”

Warren is willing to take positions that Obama apparently couldn’t because he was the first black president. She barely seems aware of her gender difference, much less that she has a shot — albeit long — at becoming the first woman president. She’s too busy exposing unfair subsidies, demanding corporate transparency and beefing up Dodd-Frank.

What else would a President Warren do? She would tell working people why the wealth gap is killing the American dream. She would tell them that companies like Medtronic and Walgreens are giving up their U.S. citizenship because, after all, these days they have customers and workers aplenty overseas and evading the IRS is way too much trouble. It’s cheaper to just move. New NAFTA-style trade agreements like the Transpacific Partnership wouldn’t be hush-hush with Warren in the White House. Neither would drone attacks, CIA surveillance techniques, and sweetheart deals between corporations and the Justice Department.

Could candidate Warren be bought? That’s always possible, but one thing I’m sure of is that Hillary Clinton sold out a long time ago.  ...
Title: Hillary, Goldman Sachs, et al
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2015, 09:07:22 AM
Title: The Hillbillary's Most Lucrative Adventure
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 18, 2015, 09:04:11 AM
Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise
Donations raise ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up expected 2016 bid
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton address the Clinton Global Initiative in New York in September 2014. ENLARGE
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton address the Clinton Global Initiative in New York in September 2014. Photo: European Pressphoto Agency
James V. Grimaldi And
Rebecca Ballhaus
Updated Feb. 17, 2015 11:05 p.m. ET

The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.

Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.
Read More on Capital Journal

    Who Will Call the Plays in Obama’s Fourth Quarter?
    Unease Grows as Clinton Stays on Sidelines (Feb. 11)
    On Twitter, 2016 Rivals Let the Jabs Fly

In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad.

The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.

The donations come as Mrs. Clinton prepares for an expected run for the Democratic nomination for president, and they raise many of the same ethical quandaries. Since leaving the State Department in early 2013, Mrs. Clinton officially joined the foundation, which changed its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has become a prodigious fundraiser as the foundation launched a $250 million endowment campaign, officials said.

A representative for Hillary Clinton referred all questions to the Clinton Foundation.

A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects, which aim to do such things as improve education, health care and the environment around the world. He also said that donors go through a vigorous vetting process.

One of the 2014 donations comes from a Canadian agency promoting the proposed Keystone pipeline, which is favored by Republicans and under review by the Obama administration. The Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development agency of Canada, a first-time donor, gave between $250,000 and $500,000. The donations, which are disclosed voluntarily by the foundation, are given only in ranges.

One of the agency’s priorities for 2014-2015 was to promote Keystone XL “as a stable and secure source of energy and energy technology,” according to the agency’s website. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department was involved in approving the U.S. government’s initial environmental-impact statement. Since leaving State, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly declined to comment on Keystone.

The Canadian donation originated from an agency office separate from the one that advocates for Keystone XL, a Foundation spokesman said.

While the Canadian donation didn’t appear in a Clinton Foundation online database of donors until recently, the donation of about $480,000 was announced in June in Cartagena, Colombia, where the program provides job training for youths.

Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, said the Clintons should immediately reimpose the ban, for the same reasons it was in place while Mrs. Clinton led U.S. foreign policy.

“Now that she is gearing up to run for president, the same potential exists for foreign governments to curry favor with her as a potential president of the United States,” he said.

If she becomes president and deals with these nations, “she can’t recuse herself,” added James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “Whether it influences her decision making is questionable, but it is a legitimate thing to focus on by her political opposition.”

The donations weren’t announced by the foundation and were discovered by The Wall Street Journal during a search of donations of more than $50,000 posted on the foundation’s online database. Exactly when the website was updated isn’t clear. The foundation typically updates its website with the previous year’s donations near the beginning of the year. All 2014 donations were noted with asterisks.

At least four foreign countries gave to the foundation in 2013—Norway, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands—a fact that has garnered little attention. The number of governments contributing in 2014 appears to have doubled from the previous year. Since its founding, the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments, according to a Journal tally.

United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.

A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.

The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.

Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.

Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.

The Clinton Foundation has set a goal of creating a $250 million endowment, an official said. One purpose was secure the future of the foundation’s programs without having to rely so much on the former president’s personal fundraising efforts, the official said.

The Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman donations went to the endowment drive.

Write to James V. Grimaldi at
Title: Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand - Not a parody?
Post by: DougMacG on February 22, 2015, 10:11:29 AM
Wash Post: The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand

Powerlineblog:  They should have added, “Not a parody.”
Title: Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan
Post by: DougMacG on March 02, 2015, 11:37:06 AM
Many of the possible campaign themes have already been used so Hillary advisers are scrambling to meet her planned April announcement plan.

Nixon 1972 had, Now more than ever.  Reagan 1984, Morning Again in America.  Bill Clinton 1996, Building a bridge to the twenty-first century and don't, stop, thinking about tomorrow.  Barack Obama, Yes we can, Forward, and now Hillary Clinton 2016,  Double Down on Failure!
Title: Looks pretty damning to me , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2015, 11:38:59 AM


Judicial Watch confirmed Thursday what many Americans already knew: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's attempt to blame the attacks in Benghazi on an "offensive video" was a bald-faced lie. As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Judicial Watch obtained a series of critical emails that not only reveal State Department officials knew immediately the American compound in Benghazi was under attack but that the attack was perpetrated by assailants tied to a terrorist group. And despite the infamous exasperated question from the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the truth does make a big difference at this point.
The first email was sent Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. It was forwarded by former Clinton Special Assistant Maria Sand to Clinton's former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, former Executive Assistant Joseph McManus, and a host of other Special Assistants in Clinton's office. It read as follows:
"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

Another email arrived at 4:38 p.m. It was sent by the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Scott Bultrowicz, who was fired following the report issued by the Advisory Review Board (ARB) citing "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department" responsible for security in Benghazi. That would be the same ARB that refused to interview Hillary Clinton as part of its investigation. State Department Foreign Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus the email from Bultrowicz with the subject line "Attack on Benghazi 90112012":

"DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire."

At 12:04 a.m. Randolph updated Mills, Sullivan and McManus with another email with the subject line "FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack":
"I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center."
Contained in that email is a series of equally damning updates:

4:54 p.m.: "Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel."

6:06 p.m.: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): (SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

11:57 p.m.: "(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff."
And finally, at 3:22 a.m., Sept. 12, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, later forwarded to Mills and McManus. The subject line? "Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi":

"Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi."
Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Stevens' death to the State Department Legislative Affairs office -- with instructions not to "forward to anyone at this point."

Hillary Clinton's response? An official statement calling the attack "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

As for her other, earlier response, blatantly ignored by the mainstream media? A 10 p.m. phone call between Clinton and Obama, completely contradicting the previous assertion by the White House that Obama made no phone calls the night of the attack. As National Review's Andrew McCarthy sarcastically asked, "Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?"

The rest of the orchestrated disinformation campaign -- sending former UN ambassador, current National Security Advisor and reliable propagandist Susan Rice on network news shows to maintain the despicable lie, Obama's assertion of same on the David Letterman Show and at the UN, the spending of $70,000 for a Pakistani ad campaign showing Obama and Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video, and a host of other insults to the public's intelligence -- can no longer be obscured.

America twice elected an inveterate liar as commander in chief. And the very same corrupt media that ran interference for Obama's lies are gearing up to do the same thing for an equally inveterate liar. And make no mistake: All of Clinton's critics will be characterized as perpetrating a war on women whenever the subject of her horrendous track record of prevarication arises -- one that included another blatant lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

And that's if those questions arise at all. Here are two separate Google Searches related to the revelations presented by Judicial Watch. Note that not a single mainstream media source has even filed a report, much less made this the kind of headline story, followed by a relentless series of updates, that would have attended any Republican caught doing exactly the same thing. An equal amount of calculated disinterest attends the scandalous conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation, which received millions of dollars from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to a U.S. political candidate. Funneling those contributions through the Clinton Foundation allows Hillary to skirt such restrictions.

On Benghazi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gets it exactly right: "These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton's closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about 'inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.' The contempt for the public's right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang's cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information. Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath."
Whether Congress is up to the job or not, one thing is crystal clear: Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to lead this nation. Her election to the Oval Office would be a continuation of the lawlessness and lying this nation has endured for the past six years. Judicial Watch has produced the smoking gun. The voting public ignores it at the nation's peril.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2015, 07:05:42 PM
Title: Hillary Clinton broke the law doing State Dept business on her personal email
Post by: DougMacG on March 03, 2015, 07:22:40 AM

"Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."

It was not until two months ago, nearly two years after Clinton had resigned from the State Department that her aides, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. They eventually turned over 55,000 pages of emails.

Only the Clinton aides know how many emails involving official business they did not turn over. And even these aides probably don’t know whether or to what extent Clinton’s emails previously were purged.
Title: Did Pravda on the Hudson get it wrong?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 03, 2015, 05:50:34 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 03, 2015, 06:21:56 PM

Also see  In asking for her notes they may be overreaching a bit, but overall it looks like the pressure is building.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on March 04, 2015, 05:47:05 AM
"A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them."

Here we go again.   More sleaze.
Title: WSJ: The Clinton Rules
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 04, 2015, 06:19:04 AM
The Clinton Rules
Foreign donors and private email show how Bill and Hillary work.
March 3, 2015 7:29 p.m. ET

Hillary Clinton hasn’t even begun her expected presidential candidacy, but already Americans are being reminded of the political entertainment they can expect. To wit, the normal rules of government ethics and transparency apply to everyone except Bill and Hillary.

Last week we learned that the Clinton Foundation had accepted donations from foreign governments despite having made a public display of not doing so. The Family Clinton had agreed not to accept such donations while Mrs. Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, with rare exceptions approved by State’s ethics shop.

But, lo, the foundation quietly began accepting such gifts from the likes of Qatar and Algeria after she left the State Department—though everyone in the world knew she was likely to run for President in 2016. The foundation didn’t announce the donations, which our Journal colleagues discovered in a search of the foundation’s online data base.

Then Monday the New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton used a personal email account for official business as Secretary of State, despite a federal transparency law that requires officials to maintain emails on government servers. A former long-time litigation director at the National Archives & Records Administration told the paper he could “recall no instance” when a high-ranking official had solely used a personal email address for government business.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill says this is no big deal because Team Clinton is following “the letter and the spirit of rules” and has turned over to State some 55,000 emails in response to a formal request. Put another way, Mrs. Clinton is controlling which emails are divulged, and everyone should trust her judgment. We doubt Congress’s Benghazi investigators will be reassured. You also have to wonder about the judgment of America’s top diplomat exposing her official business on personal email to cyber hacking from China or Iran.

The real story here is that none of this is a surprise. This is how the Clintons roll. They’re a political version of the old Peanuts cartoon character who was always surrounded by a cloud of dirt. Ethical shortcuts and controversies are standard operating procedure. A brief 1990s roll call: The Riadys, Johnny Chung, Travelgate, the vanishing Rose billing records, a killing in cattle futures, the Marc Rich pardon.

The Clintons and Democrats want Americans to forget all of that. But as the email and foundation discoveries show, the Clintons haven’t changed. They still think they can do what they please and get away with it.

Popular on WSJ
Title: Hillary's private server; Gowdy subpoenaes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 04, 2015, 11:40:29 AM
second post

Title: The apologists give it a go
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2015, 07:27:38 AM
What Might Have Motivated Hillary Clinton To Use Personal Email"

facebook icon twitter icon
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her mobile phone after her address to the Security Council at United Nations headquarters, Monday, March 12, 2012. The bloody conflict in Syria is likely to dominate public and private talks Monday as key ministers meet at the United Nations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and challenges from the Arab Spring.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her mobile phone after her address to the Security Council at United Nations headquarters.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Richard Drew

I love this story from the New York Times about Hillary Clinton using her personal email account for official Secretary of State business because it points to a serious fracture in transparency’s goals, its implementations and IT policy in Government. Take this choice quote from Thomas Blanton, the Director of the National Security Archive:

    “Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”

Are you serious? Let’s be clear, that personal email was probably far more secure than her email account. The State Department’s email system has been compromised for months. It’s highly likely that it’s been compromised since forever: remember, during her tenure, Wikileaks released the State Department’s classified communications.

A better question is: why would she use the State Department’s email system to conduct official business? In fact, if it’s demonstrably insecure, does she not have a responsibility not to use it? It’s probably the case that if Hillary Clinton was focusing solely on security, using her personal email with 2 Factor Authentication was probably way more secure than using the honeypot mess of IT that is the State Department’s email servers.

But more importantly, let’s talk about records. As the former director of Sunlight Labs at the Sunlight Foundation, it’s a cause I care about. That’s the important bit. I don’t believe Hillary Clinton was actively working to hide her communication from the public. I think she was looking for the easiest way to do her job. The one thing you have to understand about people in public service is people down to the lowest levels of public service understand open records laws, and they all know one thing: if you don’t want something on the record, don’t use email. Pick up the phone. Hillary Clinton knows that, too.

Hillary Clinton was trying to use what she wanted to use in order to do her job. As a former fed, I’m empathetic. When you start at the Federal Government, it’s often like stepping in a time machine. You’re handed technology from years ago and (especially at her level) you’re expected to do tomorrow’s work. Often faced with a choice: do I do the job I was hired to do, or do I uphold and obey the archiving laws. And usually (thankfully) “do the job” wins.

This is because the way our Federal IT shops tend to implement IT policy isn’t through service, it’s through the prescription of antiquated technology. Rather than investing in cloud managed solutions, the feds prefer you to carry around a laptop that can log into a virtual desktop computer that’s often located inside of the basement of an agency. Then, if you’re not in the office, as the Secretary of State often isn’t, you can crank up Outlook, and check your mail. Maybe. If you’ve got the right authentication token with you.

And so you sit there and go “golly, this person needs to hear from me right now, before I go into my next meeting,” and more often than not, you just pop open your gmail, and bang out your quick email because it’s easier and you need to get the job done. Often times, our political leaders are not kind enough to save them and turn them over to the public record as Hillary Clinton did. Sometimes they just delete the messages.

I hope as a result of this, a crackdown doesn’t happen (but it will). The right solution here isn’t to get more stringent on the archiving stuff, it’s to make the archiving and sunlight stuff in service to the job. The IT department should be saying “what tools do you need in order to do your job in the best way that you see fit” and working backwards from that in order to prevent this sort of thing from becoming as common as it actually is.

Instead of forcing people to use a 2010 blackberry and lotus notes to check their email through a VNC firewall that takes 10 minutes to log into (that, by the way, is demonstrably insecure anyway, compromising not only national security, but also the integrity of the archives in the first place), why not fix that policy, make it easy for people to use the tools they need to use in order to do their jobs, and use some archiving technology from, say, 2010 in order to handle it. The trick here isn’t “make people comply with strong authority,” it’s “make compliance easier, and of service to the people that need to do a job other than recordkeeping”

One final thought: I’d imagine Secretary Clinton at some point emailed the White House. I made the mistake of emailing the White House from my personal account once (!) during my term, and managed to get back a nastygram from Counsel about it. How or why didn’t the White House tell Hillary to use her official .gov email account?

It could be that they knew the entire classified and unclassified email system was compromised and decided that the smartest thing to do was for her to use her personal email instead.

Clay Johnson is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the author of The Information Diet. This post originally appeared on Medium.
Title: So much for that defense , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2015, 07:41:43 AM
second post 
Title: In amazing coincidence, Hillary's brother strikes it rich again.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2015, 01:28:24 PM
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a self-described mining company that in 2012 received one of only two “gold exploitation permits” from the Haitian government—the first issued in over 50 years.

The tiny North Carolina company, VCS Mining, also included on its board Bill Clinton’s co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), former Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.

The Rodham gold mine revelation is just one of dozens featured in a forthcoming bombshell investigative book by three-time New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer, according to a Thursday statement from publishing giant HarperCollins. The publisher says the book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, is the culmination of an exhaustive one-year deep dive investigation into the nexus between the Clintons’ $100+ million personal wealth, the Clinton Foundation, and the decisions Hillary made as Secretary of State that benefited foreign donors, governments, and companies.

VCS’s coveted gold mining exploitation permit was apparently such a sweetheart deal that it outraged the Haitian senate, since royalties to be paid to the Haitian government were only 2.5%, a sum mining experts say is at least half the standard rate. Moreover, the mining project in Morne Bossa came with a generous ability to renew the project for up to 25 years. Nevertheless, the fledgling company proudly touted its luck in landing the deal.

“This is one of two permits issued today, the first permit of their kind issued in over five decades,” reads the only press release under VCS’s “news” tab on its scant website.

According to USAID, $3.1 billion have been dispersed since the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

Clinton Cash is said to contain “seismic” and “game-changing” revelations that far eclipse anything presently reported on the Clinton Foundation’s violation of its agreement not to accept foreign government money during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state.

In 2011, Schweizer’s book Throw Them All Out exposed insider trading by members of Congress and became the subject of an award-winning CBS 60 Minutes story and “started the STOCK [Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge] Act stampede,” according to Slate.

“Bestselling author Peter Schweizer coins a new term to describe the unique way in which Bill and Hillary tend to mingle their political, personal and philanthropic interests: the ‘Clinton Blur,’” says HarperCollins editor Adam Bellow. “Schweizer’s scrupulously sourced and exhaustively researched book raises serious questions about the sources of the Clintons’ sudden wealth, their ethical judgment, and Hillary’s fitness for high public office.”

The book is slated to hit bookshelves nationwide May 5th.
Title: SEcret Service "protecting" Hillary's server.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2015, 01:33:23 PM
Third post of the day
Title: Hillary on secret email accounts in the Bush WH, 2007
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2015, 01:39:25 PM
4th post of the day
Title: Just how unsafe was Hillary's secret server?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2015, 01:48:36 PM
5th post

To see the visuals that are part of the piece, best to go to: 

 When Hillary Clinton ditched government email in favor of a secret, personal address, it wasn't just an affront to Obama's vaunted transparency agenda—security experts consulted by Gawker have laid out a litany of potential threats that may have exposed her email conversations to potential interception by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies.

"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.

Within the instant classic "" domain, it appears there are three separate servers. The domain's blank landing page is hosted by Confluence Networks, a web firm in the British Virgin Islands, known for monetizing expired domain names and spam.

But the real worry comes from two other public-facing subdomains, which can allow anyone with the right URL to try to sign in.

One is, which provides a login page that apparently uses an SSL VPN—a protocol that allows your web browser to create an encrypted connection to a local network from any internet connection—to users to access their email. That sounds secure, and under the right circumstances, for regular users, it can be. But there are two huge problems with using it for the Secretary of State's communications with her staff and others.

How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?

First: Anyone in the world with that URL can attempt to log in. It's unclear what exactly lies on the other side of this login page, but the fact that you could log into anything tied to the Secretary of State's email is, simply, bad. If the page above is directly connected to Clinton's email server, a login there could be disastrous, according to Robert Hansen, VP of security firm WhiteHat Labs:

    It might be the administrative console interface to the Windows machine or a backup. In that case, all mail could have been copied.

What's more troubling is the fact that, at least as of yesterday, the server at sslvpn has an invalid SSL certificate. Digital certificates are used to "sign" the encryption keys that servers and browsers use to establish encrypted communications. (The reason that hackers can't just vacuum the internet traffic between your browser and Google's Gmail servers and read your email is that your browser is encrypting the data to a public encryption key. The reason that you know that you are encrypting to Google's key and not to, say, the People's Liberation Army's, is that the Gmail servers have a digital certificate from a trusted third-party confirming that the key is theirs.)

When you attempt to access using Google's Chrome browser, this is what you see:

How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?

The apparent reason for that message is that the certificate used by Clinton's server is self-signed—verified by the authority that issued it, but not by a trusted third party—and therefore regarded by Google's Chrome browser as prima facie invalid. The government typically uses military-grade certificates and encryption schemes for its internal communications that designed with spying from foreign intelligence agencies in mind. But the setup? "If you're buying jam online," says Hansen, "you're fine." But for anything beyond consumer-grade browsing, it's a shoddy arrangement.

Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military. Or, if someone were able to copy the security certificate Clinton used, they could execute what's called a "man in the middle" attack, invisible eavesdropping on data. "It's highly likely that another person could simply extract the certificate and man in the middle any user of the system without any warnings whatsoever," Hansen said.

The invalid certificate would have also likely left Clinton vulnerable to widespread internet bugs like "Heartbleed," which was only discovered last spring, and may have let hackers copy the entire contents of the Clinton servers' memory. Inside that memory? Who knows: "It could very well have been a bunch of garbage," said Hansen, or "it could have been her full emails, passwords, and cookies." Heartbleed existed unnoticed for years. A little social engineering, Hansen said, could give attackers access to Clinton's DNS information, letting them route and reroute data to their own computers without anyone realizing. "It's a fairly small group of people who know how to do that," Hansen noted, but "it's not hard—it's just a lot of steps."
"It was done hastily and not locked down."

We don't know, of course, if the current state of Clinton's servers is representative of the security precautions that were in place while she was using it as Secretary of State. The system could have previously been hardened against attack, and left to get weedy and vulnerable after she left government. We don't know. But that's part of the problem—at the Department of State, there is accountability for the security of email systems. If we learned that State's email servers had been hacked or left needlessly vulnerable, there would be investigations and consequences. With Clinton's off-the-books scheme, there are only questions.

The final address behind ClintonEmail is a mail host,, which will kick back an error message when visited directly:

How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?

But if you plug in a different URL with the same mail server, you're presented with a user-friendly, familiar Outlook webmail login:

How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?

This is basically no more secure than the way you'd log into AOL, Facebook, or any other website. There's no evidence that Clinton (or her staffers) used this web interface to check their emails, as opposed to logging in through a smartphone or other email software. But its mere existence is troubling enough: there have been five separate security vulnerabilities identified with Outlook Web Access since was registered in 2009. These security bugs include doozies like "a flaw that may lead to an unauthorized information disclosure" (2010) and "a remote attacker can gain access to arbitrary files" (2014).

But even without exploiting software bugs, Hansen says leaving a public login page for something that's meant to be private is "pretty much the worst thing you can do." Clinton's Outlook form could've been susceptible to a brute force attack—where random combinations of words and characters are tried until one of them works—or an old fashioned denial of service assault. "Even if she had a particularly strong password," Hansen said, a brute force attack will "either work eventually—foreign militaries are very good at trying a lot—or it'll fail and block her from accessing her own email."

If Clinton had been using a government account, Hansen explained, her messages with colleagues would all be held within one relatively tidy system, monitored by the federal government. It's the difference between doing your laundry at home and dropping it off. But with a private account, you're introducing many separate points of failure; every single company in this custom system is a place to pry and attack. "Any joe hacker" could get inside with enough knowledge and time, according to Hansen.
"Pretty much the worst thing you can do."

Cubrilovic echoed Hansen's concern: "When you are a staffer in a government department, internal email never leaves the network that the department has physical control over," he told me. But "with externally hosted email every one of those messages would go out onto the internet," where they're subject to snooping.

Security researcher Kenn White agrees that private internet access stirs up too many dangerous variables while emails bounced from person to person:

    I think the bigger security concern here is the complete lack of visibility into who has been administering, backing up, maintaining, and accessing the Secretary's email. If classified documents were exchanged, who viewed them? Were they forwarded? Where multiple devices (ie, mobile phones and tablets) configured to access the account? Was encryption required or optional for remote access?

Cubrilovic agreed that opting out of the government's system is an awful idea for someone with a hacker bullseye on her back: "having a high profile target host their own email is a nightmare for information security staff working for the government," he told me, "since it can undo all of the other work they've done to secure their network." The kind of off-the-shelf email service it appears Clinton used comes with a lot of inherent risk, especially since a pillar of her job is overseas travel:

    With your own email hosting you're almost certainly going to be vulnerable to Chinese government style spearphishing attacks—which government departments have enough trouble stopping—but the task would be near impossible for an IT naive self-hosted setup.

While some of these hacking scenarios may sound outlandish or far-fetched, keep in mind that Clinton's emails would have been a prime target for some of the globe's most sophisticated state-sponsored cyberwarriors—the Chinese, the Israelis, the Iranians. The very existence of Clinton's private account was revealed by the hacker Guccifer, an unemployed Romanian taxi driver who managed to gain access to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account with relative ease. The Hillary account was reported by Gawker in 2013, and White House spokesman Eric Schultz used that story to argue that the Clinton email story was old news: "This was public years ago," he told Business Insider, linking to the 2013 Gawker story.

Which is another way of saying that foreign intelligence agencies have had two years to work on the target.

Photo: Getty
Title: Has Hillary found her wiggle room? "Jeb did the same thing"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2015, 06:07:56 AM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2015, 08:02:54 AM
second post

Email Scandal Won't Doom Hillary, but Supporters Should Feel Uneasy
Jonah Goldberg | Mar 06, 2015

Historically, the Clintons have proved to be politically indestructible. To paraphrase the movie "Aliens," to truly destroy the Clinton Industrial Complex, you'd have to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Given that alone, I doubt that the unfolding controversy over Hillary's email schemes spells her doom.

The basic details are as follows: In 2009, a week before she started her job as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had a personal Internet server registered at her home address. She then used her own domain name, "," to conduct all of her business -- for the State Department, but also presumably the Clinton Foundation and other matters, be they nefarious or high-minded.

The server was registered under the name Eric Hoteman -- someone who doesn't exist. But it's almost surely Eric Hothem, a Washington financial adviser and former aide to Clinton who, according to the Associated Press, has been a technology adviser to the family. Tony Soprano would be envious.

This system allowed Clinton to maintain control over her email correspondence. No third-party copies would be stored on, say, government or Google hard drives. Matt Devost, a security expert, succinctly explained to Bloomberg News the point of having your own private email server: "You erase it and everything's gone."

Depending on whom you ask, this was a violation of Obama administration policy, long-established State Department rules, the Federal Records Act or all of the above. Moreover, outside the ranks of Clinton Industrial Complex employees, contractors and supplicants, there's a rare bipartisan consensus that it was, to use a technical term, really, really shady.

Team Clinton's initial response was as expected: send out oleaginous flacks to shoot the messenger and befog the issue. That failed. Even normally reliable resellers of Clinton spin at MSNBC balked at the prospect of keeping a straight face as David Brock, a prominent Clinton remora, tried to demand an apology from The New York Times for breaking the story.

Then Mrs. Clinton weighed in to somewhat greater effect. She tweeted, "I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."

This was a reference to the "55,000 pages" of emails Clinton handed over to the State Department in response to a request. It's also a classic bit of misdirection. Among the swirling issues at play is whether Clinton handed over all of her official business emails as required. (The State Department offers no clarity on this.) The whole point of having your own private server is that no one can check to make sure you didn't selectively delete or withhold emails.

The number of pages is also meaningless. First, if you've ever printed out email, you know that "pages" and "emails" are not synonymous terms. But even if they were, so what? I could release 99.99 percent of all my emails, and you'd see little more than boring work product, press releases, spam and appeals from Nigerian oil ministers. My incriminating stuff could remain invisible -- valuable snowflakes held back from a blizzard of chaff. If you don't think the Clintons are capable of such legerdemain, I refer you to the Clinton-inspired debate over billing records and the meaning of "is."

This points to another reason why I think Clinton will survive this mess. If there's a damning email out there, it's been deleted, and the relevant hard drive would be harder to find than Jimmy Hoffa's body. So critics are probably left with the task of proving a negative.

The real significance of this moment -- and a partial explanation of the media firestorm over it -- is that time is running out to stop the Clinton freight train.

Nothing in this story is surprising: not the desire for secrecy, nor the flouting of legal norms, nor the cynical attempts to shoot the messengers -- and certainly not the staggering hypocrisy. (In 2007, then-Sen. Clinton denounced the Bush White House's far more defensible use of "secret" Republican National Committee email addresses for campaign business as proof that "our Constitution is being shredded.") It's all vintage Clinton.

At some point down the tracks, when yet another fetid cloud of Clintonism erupts into plain view, many smart liberals will look back at this moment as the time when they should have pulled the emergency brake and gotten off the Hillary train.

The unease they feel now will be nothing compared to the buyer's remorse to come.
Title: Noonan: Stuck in Scandal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2015, 08:04:51 AM
Third post

By Peggy Noonan
March 5, 2015 6:31 p.m. ET

Doesn’t the latest Hillary Clinton scandal make you want to throw up your hands and say: Do we really have to do this again? Do we have to go back there? People assume she is our next president. We are defining political deviancy down.

The scandal this week is that we have belatedly found out, more than two years after she left the office of secretary of state, that throughout Mrs. Clinton’s four-year tenure she did not conduct official business through the State Department email system. She had her own private email addresses and her own private Internet domain, on her own private server at one of her own private homes, in Chappaqua, N.Y. Which means she had, and has, complete control of the emails. If a journalist filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking to see emails of the secretary of state, the State Department had nothing to show. If Congress asked to see them, State could say there was nothing to see. (Two months ago, on the request of State, Mrs. Clinton turned over a reported 55,000 pages of her emails. She and her private aides apparently got to pick which ones.)

Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat because she might have been doing a great deal of interesting work in those emails, not only with respect to immediate and unfolding international events but with respect to those who would like to make a positive impression on the American secretary of state by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which not only funds many noble causes but is the seat of operations of Clinton Inc. and its numerous offices, operatives, hangers-on and campaign-in-waiting?

What a low and embarrassing question. It is prompted by last week’s scandal—that the Clinton Foundation accepted foreign contributions during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. It is uncomfortable to ask such questions, but that’s the thing with the Clintons, they always make you go there.

The mainstream press is all over the story now that it has blown. It’s odd that it took so long. Everyone at State, the White House, and the rest of the government who received an email from the secretary of state would have seen where it was coming from—a nongovernmental address. You’d think someone would have noticed.

With the exception of the moment Wednesday when a hardy reporter from TMZ actually went to an airport and shouted a query at Mrs. Clinton—it was just like the old days of journalism, with a stakeout and shouted queries—Mrs. Clinton hasn’t been subjected to any questions from the press. She’s slide, she’ll glide, she’ll skate. (With TMZ she just walked on, smiling.)
Opinion Journal Video
Best of the Web Today Columnist James Taranto on the news that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account to conduct State Department business. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Why would she ignore regulations to opt out of the State email system? We probably see the answer in a video clip posted this week on Buzzfeed. Mrs. Clinton, chatting with a supporter at a fundraiser for her 2000 Senate campaign, said: “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I . . . ever want to do email?”

But when you’re secretary of state you have to. So she did it her way, with complete control. It will make it harder, if not impossible, for investigators.

The press is painting all this as a story about how Mrs. Clinton, in her love for secrecy and control, has given ammunition to her enemies. But that’s not the story. The story is that this is what she does, and always has. The rules apply to others, not her. She’s special, entitled, exempt from the rules—the rules under which, as the Federalist reports, the State Department in 2012 forced the resignation of a U.S. ambassador, “in part for setting up an unsanctioned private e-mail system.”

Why doesn’t the legacy press swarm her on this? Because she is political royalty. They are used to seeing her as a regal, queenly figure. They’ve been habituated to understand that Mrs. Clinton is not to be harried, not to be subjected to gotcha questions or impertinent grilling. She is a Democrat, a star, not some grubby Republican governor from nowhere. And they don’t want to be muscled by her spokesmen. The wildly belligerent Philippe Reines sends reporters insulting, demeaning emails if they get out of line. He did it again this week. It is effective in two ways. One is that it diverts attention from his boss, makes Mr. Reines the story, and in the process makes her look comparatively sane. The other is that reporters don’t want a hissing match with someone who implies he will damage them. They can’t afford to be frozen out. She’s probably the next president: Their careers depend on access.

But how will such smash-mouth tactics play the next four, five years?

Back to the questions at the top of the column.

Sixteen years ago, when she was first running for the Senate, I wrote a book called “The Case Against Hillary Clinton.” I waded through it all—cattle futures, Travelgate, the lost Rose law firm records, women slimed as bimbos, foreign campaign cash, the stealth and secrecy that marked the creation of the health-care plan, Monica, the vast right-wing conspiracy. As I researched I remembered why, four years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William Safire called Hillary “a congenital liar . . . compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

Do we have to go through all that again?

In 1992 the Clintons were new and golden. Now, so many years later, their reputation for rule breaking and corruption is so deep, so assumed, that it really has become old news. And old news isn’t news.

An aspect of the story goes beyond criticism of Mrs. Clinton and gets to criticism of us. A generation or two ago, a person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.

What happened? Why is her party so in her thrall?

She’s famous? The run itself makes you famous. America didn’t know who Jack Kennedy was in 1959; in 1961 he was king of the world. The same for Obama in ’08.

Money? Sure she’s the superblitz shock-and-awe queen of fundraising, but pretty much any Democrat in a 50/50 country would be able to raise what needs to be raised.

She’s a woman? There are other women in the Democratic Party.

She’s inevitable? She was inevitable in 2008. Then, suddenly, she was evitable.

Her talent is for survival. This on its own terms is admirable and takes grit. But others have grit. As for leadership, she has a sharp tactical sense but no vision, no overall strategic sense of where we are and where we must go.

What is freezing the Democrats is her mystique. But mystique can be broken. A nobody called Obama broke hers in 2008.

Do we really have to return to Scandal Land? It’s what she brings wherever she goes. And it’s not going to stop.
Popular on WSJ

Title: Allen West: Hillary leaked Israel's plans
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2015, 04:10:49 PM

Now there are more daggers coming out to connect the dots. As reported by, “The media feeding frenzy over the alleged unlawful use by Hillary Clinton of a non-government email system is having an impact on other allegations against the potential Democrat party presidential candidate.”

“This week Tuesday, a former Department of Justice prosecuting attorney said that he believes then Secretary of State — probably using her unofficial and illegal email system — was complicit in the leaking of classified intelligence regarding military operation plans formulated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”

As well, “In a Washington Post front page news story on March 2, 2015, reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel’s plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli’s war plans, since President Barack Obama and his staff — including his top advisor Valerie Jarrett, herself born in Iran — believed Israel was willing and had the technical and strategic expertise to launch a preemptive sneak attack on Iran in order to eliminate their nuclear threat.”

Ms. Gearan wrote: “Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private e-mail account for her official government business when she was secretary of state and did not routinely preserve and turn over those e-mails for government records collection, the State Department said Monday.” She also wrote: “It was not clear why Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, created the private account. But the practice appears to bolster long-standing criticism that Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have not been transparent.”

As of Thursday the Associated Press and Judicial Watch announced they’re considering bringing lawsuits against Hillary Clinton. And late last night Clinton decided to release a tweet that only exacerbated the issue, seemingly conveying her disdain for the intellect of the American people. Her message was that she has consented to the State Department release of her emails — well, these are the emails Clinton has already provided to the State Department, since they have no access to her personal account. It appears that this U.S. Code addresses “willful and unlawful concealment” of records.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on March 06, 2015, 04:52:03 PM
"The Associated Press
 and Judicial Watch announced they’re considering bringing lawsuits"

Judicial Watch probably will.  Thank God for them but
does anyone really think for one second the *AP* will sue Hillary?

I don't. 
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2015, 06:08:56 PM
On what basis?
Title: Geller: Huma Abedin was on Hillary's server too!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2015, 10:50:08 PM

Guess who else was on Clinton’s private at-home server
Current Affairs
Screen Shot 2015-03-06 at 12.36.35 PM

There is no denying what Hillary Clinton did.

    FOX: Hillary Clinton’s State Department for years was telling underlings not to use personal email — even ousting an ambassador, the ex-diplomat says, in part over his Gmail habits — despite the secretary of state herself ignoring that advice.  The disconnect is now raising questions of a double standard during her tenure.

    An internal 2011 State Department cable, obtained by Fox News, shows Clinton’s office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons.

    A year later, then-U.S. ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration resigned amid a series of clashes with the department, including over email.

She deliberately sought to hide her email correspondence from the public – shielding her skulduggery, failures and treason perhaps. No one installs a server in their home for their emails just because. The motive is malevolent and the American people should be outraged.

Further, the server should have been seized before Clinton could destroy what is obviously damning and indictable.

Further, it is striking that Huma Abedin was the only non-family member to have her own account on Clinton’s server. Atlas readers are long familiar with Abedin.  I was one of the first to report back in 2007 on the rumors that were rampant of  a very close, sexual relationship between the two which was even more disturbing considering Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood ties.

Seize the server.

Huma Abedin:

    Daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, a pro-Sharia sociologist with ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood
    Longtime former employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which shares the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of establishing Islamic supremacy and Sharia Law worldwide

Anthony Wiener was/is a beard, pure theater When Wiener was caught tweeting his pecker it caused nary a blip in the “marriage”. But the ruse was necessary for Clinton’s presidential run.


    Chelsea Clinton’s secret identity: ‘Diane Reynolds’, By Nick Gass, Politico, 3/5/15

    Read more:

    Chelsea Clinton also had an account on the homemade website domain that Hillary Clinton used exclusively for emails during her time as secretary of state, The New York Times reports. The domain name had a server linked to the family’s Chappaqua, New York, residence. But her real name is absent from the email address.

    She used her account under the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” which the Times reports she often used when checking into hotels.

    Longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin also had a account, according to the report, an apparent prized symbol of status within Clinton’s vast network of advisers, well-wishers, and hangers-on.

    According to Philippe Reines, another close Clinton aide and former State Department official, Abedin was the only department official other than the secretary to use a account.

    Clinton tweeted late Wednesday that she wants the public to see emails from the 55,000 pages she handed over to the State Department.

- See more at:


Who is Huma Abedin? 

    Daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, a pro-Sharia sociologist with ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood
    Longtime assistant to Hillary Clinton
    Wife of former congressman Anthony Weiner
    Longtime former employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which shares the Muslim Brotherhood's goal of establishing Islamic supremacy and Sharia Law worldwide


See also:  Saleha Abedin   Hassan Abedin   Anthony Weiner
              Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs   Hillary Clinton

Huma Abedin was born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who had worked as a visiting professor at Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz University in the early Seventies.

Huma's mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood's division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

When Huma was two, the Abedin family relocated from Michigan to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This move took place when Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who served as vice president of Abdulaziz University (AU), recruited his former AU colleague, Syed Abedin, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank that Naseef was preparing to launch. A number of years later, Naseef would develop close ties to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group al Qaeda. Naseef also spent time (beginning in the early 1980s) as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy points out, "has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology."

It is vital to note that IMMA's "Muslim Minority Affairs" agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed, as Andrew C. McCarthy explains, "to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West." For details about this agenda, click here.

At age 18, Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. to attend George Washington University. In 1996 she began working as an intern in the Bill Clinton White House, where she was assigned to then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Abedin was eventually hired as an aide to Mrs. Clinton and has worked for her ever since, through Clinton's successful Senate runs (in 2000 and 2006) and her failed presidential bid in 2008.

From 1997 until sometime before early 1999, Abedin, while still interning at the White House, was an executive board member of George Washington University's (GWU) Muslim Students Association (MSA), heading the organization's “Social Committee.”

It is noteworthy that in 2001-02, soon after Abedin left that executive board, the chaplain and "spritual guide" of GWU's MSA was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda operative who ministered to some of the men who were among the 9/11 hijackers. Another chaplain at GWU's MSA (from at least October 1999 through April 2002) was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda. Omeish’s brother, Esam, headed the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official branch in the United States. Both Omeish brothers were closely associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, who would later be convicted and incarcerated on terrorism charges.

From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef's active presence at IMMA. Abedin's last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.

Throughout her years with IMMA, Abedin remained a close aide to Hillary Clinton. During Mrs. Clinton's 2008 presidential primary campaign, a New York Observer profile of Abedin described her as "a trusted advisor to Mrs. Clinton, especially on issues pertaining to the Middle East, according to a number of Clinton associates." "At meetings on the region," continued the profile, "... Ms. Abedin’s perspective is always sought out."

When Mrs. Clinton was appointed as President Barack Obama's Secretary of State in 2009, Abedin became her deputy chief of staff. At approximately that same point in time, Abedin's name was removed from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs' masthead.

Apart from their working relationship, Abedin and Mrs. Clinton have also developed a close personal bond over their years together, as reflected in Clinton's 2010 assertion that: “I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma.” In 2011, Secretary Clinton paid a friendly visit to Abedin's mother, Saleha, in Saudi Arabia. On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton publicly described her aide's position as “very important and sensitive.”

On July 10, 2010, Huma Abedin, a practicing Muslim, married then-congressman Anthony Weiner in a ceremony officiated by former president Bill Clinton. A number of analysts have noted that it is extremely rare for Islamic women—particularly those whose families have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—to marry non-Muslims like Weiner, who is Jewish. Indeed, Dr. Anwar Shoeb, the highest-ranking faculty authority at the prestigious College of Sharia and Islamic Studies in Kuwait, formally declared that Abedin's marriage to Weiner was “null and void” under the dictates of Sharia Law, which explicitly forbids matrimony between a Muslim woman and an "infidel"; in fact, Shoeb classified the Abedin-Weiner union as a form of “adultery.”

Abedin went on maternity leave after giving birth to a baby boy in early December 2011. When she returned to work in June 2012, the State Department granted her an arrangement that allowed her to do outside consulting work as a “special government employee,” even as she remained a top advisor in the Department. Abedin did not disclose on her financial report either the arrangement or the $135,000 she earned from it, in violation of a law mandating that public officials disclose significant sources of income. Abedin's outside clients included the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton, the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and Teneo (a firm co-founded by Doug Band, a former counselor for Bill Clinton). Good-government groups warned of the potential conflict-of-interest inherent in an arangement where a government employee maintains private clients.

In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking that they investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence over U.S. government officials. One letter, noting that Huma Abedin's position with Hillary Clinton "affords her routine access to the secretary [of state] and to policymaking," expressed concern over the fact that Abedin “has three family members—her late father, mother and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” Some other prominent Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner disavowed the concerns articulated in the letters.

On February 1, 2013—Hillary Clinton's final day as Secretary of State—Abedin resigned her post as Mrs. Clinton's deputy chief of staff. Yet she would continue to serve as a close aide to Clinton.

On March 1, 2013, Abedin was tapped to run Clinton’s post-State Department transition team, comprised of a six-person “transition office” located in Washington.

Huma Abedin's brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center's board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Huma's sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter's departure.
Title: Gowdy: Months of Hillary emails are missing
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 08, 2015, 11:17:44 AM
Title: Re: Gowdy: Months of Hillary emails are missing
Post by: G M on March 08, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 08, 2015, 02:22:29 PM
To be precise, didn't that come after Hillary left office?
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: G M on March 08, 2015, 03:16:28 PM
To be precise, didn't that come after Hillary left office?

The federal laws cited in the bulletin well predate Hillary's tenure at state. I had training on the same thing working for the federal government in 2002.
Title: Did Hillary commit felony?
Post by: G M on March 08, 2015, 03:19:59 PM
Title: Hillary fired from Watergate investigation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 08, 2015, 09:25:12 PM
This fact has been posted here previously but there may be some additional intel in this one:
Title: WSJ: Paper Tigress: printouts, not emails.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2015, 01:44:40 PM
Paper Tigress
Mrs. Clinton turned over printouts, not emails.
James Taranto
March 9, 2015 3:58 p.m. ET

If you were following the revelations about Hillary Clinton’s private State Department IT operation last week, you probably heard that, as the initial New York Times story put it, “55,000 pages of emails were given to the department” in December after being selected by a private aide to the former secretary. You might have wondered: What does that mean, 55,000 “pages”? Or maybe you just read it, as the crack fact-check team over at PolitiFact did just last night, as 55,000 emails.

It turns out the reference is to literal physical pages. From Friday’s Times: “Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department.”
Email, Clinton style ENLARGE
Email, Clinton style Photo: Getty Images

Why did Mrs. Clinton have her staff go through the trouble of printing out, boxing and shipping 50,000 or 55,000 pages instead of just sending a copy of the electronic record? One can only speculate, but there is an obvious advantage: Printed files are less informative and far harder to search than the electronic originals.

Because State has only printouts of emails, department personnel responding to a Freedom of Information Act request have to go through the whole haystack rather than type “needle” into a search engine. At best, that would mean long delays in FOIA compliance.

Likewise, printouts are not subject to electronic discovery in the event of investigation or lawsuit. The Times reports that department lawyers responding to a request from the House Select Committee on Benghazi took two months to find “roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.” And printouts do not include electronic “metadata,” which can provide crucial forensic evidence.

Just what was Mrs. Clinton trying to hide? She set up the private domain even before her confirmation as secretary of state and never even had an official email address, so the answer at the outset would have been “Whatever.” In the event, possible specific answers include information about Benghazi and about the Clinton Foundation.

The New York Post reports that Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, chairman of the Benghazi committee, yesterday “said there are ‘huge gaps’ in the Hillary Clinton emails turned over to his panel”:

    “We don’t have all of them,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

    Included in the gaps are emails from Oct. 18, 2011, the date of the well-known photo of then-Secretary of State Clinton wearing sunglasses and gripping her BlackBerry while on a plane to Libya.

    In fact, there were no emails released to the committee from that entire trip, Gowdy said.

    Even though Clinton was famously seen checking her BlackBerry on Oct. 18, 2011, no emails from that day were turned over to the House Benghazi committee.

    “It strains credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy, that there’s not a single document that’s been turned over to Congress,” said Gowdy, who issued subpoenas last week for Clinton’s Libya emails.

There is no way of knowing if the missing emails were withheld by Mrs. Clinton from the State Department, withheld by the department from the committee, or overlooked by the department’s lawyers as they went through box after box. (To be sure, it is also possible that no such emails exist. Although it strains credulity, it does not defy logic to observe that perhaps the secretary was merely playing Brick Breaker.)

National Journal’s Ron Fournier, meanwhile, wonders “what the emails might reveal about any nexus between Clinton’s work at State and donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from U.S. corporations and foreign nations”:

    One of [Bill Clinton’s] longest-serving advisers, a person who had worked directly for the foundation, told me the “longtime whispers of pay-to-play are going to become shouts.”

    This person, a Clinton loyalist and credible source, has no evidence of wrongdoing but said the media’s suspicions are warranted. “The emails are a related but secondary scandal,” the source said. “Follow the foundation money.” . . .

    Without those emails, we may never be able to follow the money. Could that be why she hasn’t coughed up the server?

The Atlantic’s Hanna Rosin—in a piece titled “Among the Hillary Haters” and published before the email scandal became public—suggests that the foundation’s sleaze could undermine one of Mrs. Clinton’s biggest political assets:

    One criticism of [Mrs.] Clinton that Burning Glass [a Republican consultancy] has found to resonate with women is an attack [Barack] Obama used successfully against her in 2008: that she is “more politically motivated” than the average politician. In general, people tend to view women as political outsiders. They assume that their motives are more pure than those of their male counterparts, and that they are in it not just for themselves but for some greater good.

    In its focus groups, however, Burning Glass has found strategies that, over time, can take this asset away from Clinton, and convince women that she is more political than the average candidate. One is to suggest inappropriate overlap between her work at the State Department and at the Clinton Foundation. The firm points out that one of Secretary Clinton’s aides was also consulting at the foundation, which might have created a conflict of interest. The aim is not to uncover a scandal, but rather to show that Clinton operates just like the boys: she works the system and stacks it with cronies, making them all rich in the process. It’s an approach that Burning Glass has found can make respondents “significantly less likely to support” Clinton in 2016.

Amy Chozick, who covers Mrs. Clinton for the New York Times, offers another angle:

    The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei—all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.

    The department’s 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all “common” there.

    Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.

At a Clinton Foundation event in Miami Saturday, Bill Clinton “defended the charity’s acceptance of foreign donations, pointing to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in particular. . . . ‘You’ve got to decide when you do this work whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country.’ ”

Politico quotes one of Mr. Clinton’s examples, to hilarious effect: “For example, the UAE gave us money. Do we agree with everything [they] do? No. But they help us fight ISIS.” We don’t doubt that it is sometimes necessary or useful for the U.S. government to form alliances with unsavory regimes. But look how Mr. Clinton describes the trade: The UAE helps “us” (meaning the U.S.) fight ISIS. In return, they give “us” (meaning the Clintons) money.

You could call that a win-win, but what exactly is in it for the Emiratis? The problem for the Clintons is that that’s not a rhetorical question.
Title: Gowdy on State Dept as arbiter of Hillary's emails
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2015, 10:23:29 PM
Title: Clinton fatigue: Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on March 10, 2015, 09:00:13 AM
Welcome back to the Clinton baggage years.

Clinton's problem is based on right wing talking points?  Again?  Still?

Even Carville's main point is that it's never going to change and predicts a bigger scandal coming.  I predict that also.  People like this have more problems out there than we know.  Even MSNBC thinks HRC broke an important promise - to not take foreign money into the foundation while serving as Secretary of State.  What say she about THAT?!

Rich Lowry pegs the Clinton contribution scandal.  "There is a reason that so many of Hillary’s political donors also give to the family foundation, and it’s not because they have never heard of the Red Cross."  (It is to buy favor.)

Why did Obama knowingly tolerate her personal email use?

Why do the defenders think she did nothing wrong or illegal?  The laws cited don't apply to her?  Why not?  It just took us years to find Lois Lerner emails.  Bad timing for Hillary that people are sick of all the dodging.  She is going to stall this off past the election?  And win?  Like Obama did with an election coming 2 months after Benghazi.  I don't think that will fly here.  Carville gives us every reason to move on past Hillary.  Is there really no one with ANY integrity they can put forward?

Why don't we trust Hillary to cherry pick her own emails and tell us which ones are relevant?  Either committees have access to her body of work or they don't.  Either there is oversight or there isn't.  She took an oath and claimed to be a public servant, not a private plotter.  Either Dems promised greater transparency or they didn't.  I know we are sick of the Clintons, and distrustful of them.  When will the left admit they are sick of them and distrustful of them too?  Dems jumped at the first sign of a credible alternative in 2008.  What will they do now? Judging by the reactions of Andrea Mirchell of MSNBC and Diane Feinstein, senior statesman of the Dems in the US Senate, maybe not just stick their heads in the sand.
Title: Hide and Seek w Hillary's Server
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
Title: It isn't the emails, it's the corruption
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2015, 04:36:46 PM
second post

It Isn't the E-Mails, It's the Corruption: Congress Has to Find All the Facts

Hillary Clinton held her first press conference in years yesterday to address a few of the questions everyone wants to ask about her emails. But the focus on Clinton’s emails misses the larger and more dangerous scandal, of which the private server is only a symptom.

The poorly-defended personal server in her closet, her use of a personal email account for all of her official business, her unilateral decision to erase more than 30,000 emails, her narrow definition of "official" as emails sent to U.S. federal government addresses (when several of her top aides also used personal email accounts) – are all outrageous, yes. But none of these go to the heart of the Clinton scandal.

The key fact is that a former president of the United States and his wife, a U.S. senator, then Secretary of State and always a possible future president, have raised nearly $2 billion dollars--a significant part of it from foreign governments--for their family foundation.

That figure actually understates the total amount of money flowing through the Clinton empire since they left the White House. There have been extraordinarily highly paid speeches and consulting gigs. There have been extraordinarily large book advances (the most recent of which almost certainly did not earn back the advance). There have been expensive trips on private planes and yachts to stay at private mansions.

The IRS has investigated churches and Tea Party groups run by grandmothers to determine the extent of their political activities. The FBI has investigated Republican governors for corruption or abuse of office on the most tenuous grounds.

Yet apparently neither has any interest in the $2 billion raised for the personal foundation of America’s most prominent political family.

Given the national security issues at stake--and the national security consequences that may already have occurred--Congress needs to look at questions much larger than Hillary’s email. It needs to look at the Clinton Foundation’s income and expenditures. Because the Clintons didn't just raise $2 billion. They also spent $2 billion.

Who gave the money is one question.

Who got the money is another question.

Whom did they favor with their largesse? What personal business transactions occurred parallel to foundation activities?

You may think that these questions are grasping at straws. But consider Breitbart’s report about Peter Schweizer’s new book, which will be published in May. Schweizer spent a year investigating the Clinton empire. Among his findings, according to Breitbart:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a self-described mining company that in 2012 received one of only two ‘gold exploitation permits’ from the Haitian government—the first issued in over 50 years.

The tiny North Carolina company, VCS Mining, also included on its board Bill Clinton’s co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), former Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.

...VCS’s coveted gold mining exploitation permit was apparently such a sweetheart deal that it outraged the Haitian senate, since royalties to be paid to the Haitian government were only 2.5%, a sum mining experts say is at least half the standard rate.

The State Department directed billions of dollars in aid to Haiti while Hillary was secretary. The Clinton Foundation directed many millions more. Bill Clinton also co-founded the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund which directed an additional half-billion dollars of donations to Haiti. Bill Clinton was also named the U.N. special envoy to Haiti.

It is a surpassing coincidence that Hillary’s brother suddenly decided to enter the mining business in Haiti and that the company on whose board he sat received a very favorable mining deal from the Haitian government.
Schweizer wrote me that this "gold mine is a minor revelation." He further wrote that the scale of Clinton corruption "is scary stuff."

Of course, we know that many foreign countries have given the Clinton Foundation millions of dollars directly, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Algeria, Australia, Germany, and Norway, among others. As the San Diego Union-Tribune put it in a recent editorial:
This may be legal, but it reeks. It could not be more obvious that foreign governments are attempting to buy favor with former President Bill Clinton and possible future President Hillary Clinton. The Clintons can’t make the stench go away with their assurances that the de facto bribes were used to help worthy causes.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should undertake comprehensive investigations.

We need to know when meetings were held, when money in every form (speech, consulting, book, gift, travel, foundation, campaign) came in, what the various interlocking interests of the donors were, how the money was spent, and what side deals went on between the donors, the beneficiaries and the various members of the Clinton world.

When people can see the chart and timeline (and it will be enormous because raising and spending $2 billion requires a lot of relationships and activities) they will begin to see the scale of dishonesty, self-dealing, and corruption that is sure to be at the heart of the Clinton empire.

In addition to understanding the Clintons, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees need to write new laws updating and enforcing the Constitutional prohibition on foreign governments giving money to federal officials.

This explosion of foreign money into our political system is a dangerous threat to American independence and to the self-government of the American people. It must be investigated and stopped.
Your Friend,

Marc Denny No doubt our friends who are so excited about the Citizens United case will be exponentially more so with regard to this matter and will have no more to do with Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on March 11, 2015, 05:48:17 PM
Judge Nepolitano basically said on the Kelly file last night there is nothing that we can do to compel her to turn over this server.

Which to me is astounding.   How is that possible?  A government (of the people for the people and by the people) official conducts business from her own computer and can tell us to go take a hike when we demand to know what she was doing while supposedly representing the United States.   The outrageousness  of it all.

Title: A brief history of Hillary's lies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2015, 06:46:56 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on March 11, 2015, 06:52:50 PM
Now Breitbart reports that almost no State Department officials used government email.

What the heck is going on?  These people are supposed to working for us and what they do is public record.

This is a joke.   A slap in our faces.   And what the heck are all these people using email all day long for personal use while on the job anyway.

How many other government agencies are so corrupt.  I thought it was just Copyright and Patent Offices.  

For God's sake we need people to start oversight and minding the store.

As for Hillary, she will run.  And her mafia mob will ram her ahead.

The news of corruption just gets worse every darn day.   
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 11, 2015, 07:09:15 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — How Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statements about her exclusive use of private email instead of a government account as secretary of state compare with the known facts:

CLINTON: “Others had done it.”

THE FACTS: Although email practices varied among her predecessors, Clinton is the only secretary of state known to have conducted all official unclassified government business on a private email address. Years earlier, when emailing was not the ubiquitous practice it is now among high officials, Colin Powell used both a government and a private account. It’s a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business.

CLINTON: “I fully complied with every rule I was governed by.”

THE FACTS: At the very least, Clinton appears to have violated what the White House has called “very specific guidance” that officials should use government email to conduct business.

Clinton provided no details about whether she had initially consulted with the department or other government officials before using the private email system. She did not answer several questions about whether she sought any clearances before she began relying exclusively on private emails for government business.

Federal officials are allowed to communicate on private email and are generally allowed to conduct government business in those exchanges, but that ability is constrained, both by federal regulations and by their supervisors.

Federal law during Clinton’s tenure called for the archiving of such private email records when used for government work, but did not set out clear rules or punishments for violations until rules were tightened in November. In 2011, when Clinton was secretary, a cable from her office sent to all employees advised them to avoid conducting any official business on their private email accounts because of targeting by unspecified “online adversaries.”

CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

THE FACTS: The assertion fits with the facts as known but skirts the issue of exchanging information in a private account that, while falling below the level of classified, is still sensitive.

The State Department and other national security agencies have specified rules for the handling of such sensitive material, which could affect national security, diplomatic and privacy concerns, and may include material such as personnel, medical and law enforcement data. In reviewing the 30,000 emails she turned over to the State Department, officials are looking for any security lapses concerning sensitive but unclassified material that may have been disclosed.

CLINTON: “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”

THE FACTS: While Clinton’s server was physically guarded by the Secret Service, she provided no evidence it hadn’t been compromised by hackers or foreign adversaries. She also didn’t detail who administered the email system, if it received appropriate software security updates, or if it was monitored routinely for unauthorized access.

Clinton also didn’t answer whether the homebrew computer system on her property had the same level of safeguards provided at professional data facilities, such as regulated temperatures, offsite backups, generators in case of power outages and fire-suppression systems. It was unclear what, if any, encryption software Clinton’s server may have used to communicate with U.S. government email accounts.

Recent high-profile breaches, including at Sony Pictures Entertainment, have raised scrutiny on how well corporations and private individuals protect their computer networks from attack.

CLINTON: “When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.”

THE FACTS: If multiple devices were an inconvenience in the past, they may be something of an obsession now. Clinton told an event in California’s Silicon Valley last month that she has an iPad, a mini-iPad, an iPhone and a BlackBerry. “I’m like two steps short of a hoarder,” she said. She suggested she started out in Washington with a BlackBerry but her devices grew in number.

Smartphones were capable of multiple emails when she became secretary; it’s not clear whether the particular phone she used then was permitted to do so under State Department rules.


Title: Gowdy goes after Hillary's aides' emails
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2015, 09:19:17 AM

If Hillary Clinton thinks the scandal will end when she turns all of her email over — it won't.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi will soon move to obtain private emails from as many as 10 of her top aides from her time as secretary of state.

"That's great when you email other people on the .gov it would be captured by the .gov server, but if you're talking to people private to private that will never be captured," Rep. Trey Gowdy, the committee chairman, said.

"We are going to seek any private email that relates to official business, and I don't care about wedding cakes, but any work that could have been done on private-to-private accounts for those State Department employees we know had private accounts," the South Carolina Republican told CNN on Tuesday.

The committee will seek emails related to official government business from people like Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, then-deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan and longtime aide Huma Aberdin, according to Gowdy.

"She said she went through and produced all public information — and I am not in the habit of accusing people of being untruthful unless I have evidence to the contrary — but she's essentially asking us to take her word for it," Gowdy said.

According to Gowdy, it is too early to tell if a subpoena will be needed.

Gowdy, who has already said publicly gaps of months and months exist in her emails, reconfirmed this to CNN.

For example, the Benghazi committee received no emails from the Clinton camp about her October 2011 trip to Libya — despite the well-known photo of her en route, sitting on a plane with her Blackberry in hand and sunglasses on.

"It wouldn't be reasonable that she was on her way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy and there are no emails from that trip," Gowdy said, explaining the Benghazi committee only has jurisdiction over emails regarding Libya.

"With respect to materials that the select committee has requested, the department has stated that just under 300 emails related to Libya were provided by the department to the select committee in response to a November 2014 letter, which contained a broader request for materials than prior requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee," a statement released Tuesday by Clinton's office said.

"Given Secretary Clinton¹s practice of emailing department officials on their addresses, the department already had, and had already provided, the select committee with emails from Secretary Clinton in August 2014 — prior to requesting and receiving printed copies of her emails," the statement said.


Some inferences as to what those email might contain:

Emails obtained through a federal lawsuit show that two top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

The aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton’s principal gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton's side for decades.

The emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened, Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead.

Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.

The effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video – but that was never updated that night.

"Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there,"  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch obtained the State Department emails through legal action. "What's notable thus far is we received no emails from or to [Hillary Clinton],” he said. “You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about Benghazi attack."

The emails emerged as Clinton fields criticism over revelations that she used personal email during her tenure as secretary. She is now asking the department to make public thousands of emails she has turned over.

On Friday, the State Department spokeswoman was pushed to explain how they will review the Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and what will be made public.

"We will use FOIA standards for the review,"  spokeswoman Marie Harf said. "What we determine is appropriate under those FOIA standards will be public."

Harf also was questioned on a State Department unclassified cable, obtained exclusively by Fox News. The cable shows in 2011, Clinton's office told employees not to use personal email for government business, citing security reasons -- while she carried out government business exclusively on private accounts.

"This isn't her best practice guidance,” Harf said. “Her name is at the bottom of the cable, as is practiced for cables coming from Washington … some think she wrote it, which is not accurate."

Nevertheless, cables sent under Clinton's electronic signature carry her authority. 

Mills, meanwhile, is a focus of the select congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. During congressional testimony, retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who helped lead the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attacks, confirmed under cross-examination that he personally warned Mills that a witness would be damaging to the department.

Critics say it is more evidence the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, was deeply flawed.

Fox News' Pamela Browne contributed to this report
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on March 12, 2015, 12:09:10 PM
Good work covering this!  

"Who gave the money is one question.  Who got the money is another question."

This points out that is what the foundation is all about - moving money, power and influence around the globe.  If you or I set up a family foundation, no money would move; we don't have power or influence  But when the Clintons do it, billions move.  Why?  As Rich Lowry pointed out, not because donors don't know about the Reds Cross.  You give to Clintons to buy influence - with Clintons.  The Clintons chooses who receives based on what advances their mostly corrupt interests.  Follow the money on both sides!

Nothing classified was sent.  But was anything classified received?  If there is no issue with security, why all the bragging about secret service guarding the service?  What experience do armed guards outside the house have with security breaches over the internet?  What a joke.

She did this for "convenience" reasons.  NO, she did this to not let anyone see what she doesn't want us to see, namely her corrupt entanglement of personal interests and government influence.  She knew she would have to stand up some day and tell these lies to the camera with a straight face.  Whatever corruption she planned made all of this worth it to her.

She didn't know when she set this up that there would be a Benghazi scandal and investigation.  She didn't know 'mainstream' 'journalists' and some Democrats would stand up against her.  It's got to remind her of 2008 when the tide shifted against her without anything else really going wrong.

Keeping your secret life secret is great, but then don't choose to work in "public service" in "the most transparent administration ever".  There are plenty more shoes still to drop.  She knows what some of them, but other troubles will come from Bill having his own unscrutinized private life.  She knows she can do this routine over and over.  Ignore facts for a while, answer them by standing there and not answering, then let time pass and say that is all old news.  

But is this what she wants to be doing?  The private life of retirement, making speeches, writing books, running a foundation and disappearing off the public stage for months at a time is quite easy, powerful and profitable, without all this scrutiny.  Weigh that against the excitement of kicking off a campaign theme that will be called 'more of the same'.  Getting her name in the record books forever as first female President is pretty exciting, but she knows somewhere down deep that the voters turned against her last time.  

She faces an easy choice.  Run and lose, or step aside gracefully.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
"(S)tep aside gracefully"?

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on March 12, 2015, 02:45:07 PM
Well this not coincidently timed scandal just before she and her mob were ready to seize the throne does allow her challenges from the left.

I don't think Warren is so worrisome.   O'Malley is more of a concern to me.  If he picks up steam she will  not be coronated.   If he doesn't we all know the LEFT will rally around her with pitchforks long nails, and growls.   The scandal will be brushed aside.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2015, 06:00:30 PM
People are going to want someone of whom they have already heard, and who the hell is O'Malley?

Not only is she a woman, but Warren is the darling of the Dem-Progressive base.  They will work hard for her.

Title: 30,000 deleted emails were unread
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 13, 2015, 01:46:19 AM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on March 13, 2015, 07:18:32 AM
People are going to want someone of whom they have already heard, and who the hell is O'Malley?

Not only is she a woman, but Warren is the darling of the Dem-Progressive base.  They will work hard for her.

I miss the good old days when admitting you're a militant, far left, extremist meant you couldn't get elected to national office.

Crafty doesn't think O'Malley's story about the Maryland Miracle, with unemployment 50% above the national average, will fly?

Speaking of NE Liberal Governors with unemployment rates higher than the national average, what about Patrick Deval and Andrew Cuomo?

We should hope the more known, flawed, Democratic candidate, Hillary Problem Clinton is the nominee.
Title: Krauthammer, Early Onset Clinton Fatigue. Conceal and control, not convenience.
Post by: DougMacG on March 13, 2015, 07:58:57 AM
First, Chris Wallace this morning on radio called the move to keep (incriminating) emails on a private server a "genius", "politically genius" (meaning evil genius) move.  She served on the Watergate committee and learned from Nixon's mistakes.  Nixon could have destroyed his own incriminating evidence and didn't.  She faces about a month-long uproar now, a year and a half before the election, but then nothing jumps out later to take her down. 

I disagree.  This has lasting hurt.  She isn't as smart as she thinks she is or as smooth an operator as her slippery husband.  If she thought she was protected, she may have been sloppy with what shouldn't have been put in writing.  Those emails and other skeletons will come back to haunt her. 

Famous people caught reading the forum (?), or in this case can we humbly say great minds think alike.  Charles Krauthammer writes with great clarity the same points all of us are making about the HRC email scandal:

Early Onset Clinton Fatigue

By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer, Washington Post (today)

She burned the tapes.

Had Richard Nixon burned his tapes, he would have survived Watergate. Sure, there would have been a major firestorm, but no smoking gun. Hillary Rodham was a young staffer on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Nixon. She saw. She learned.

Today you don’t burn tapes. You delete e-mails. Hillary Clinton deleted 30,000, dismissing their destruction with the brilliantly casual: “I didn’t see any reason to keep them.” After all, they were private and personal, she assured everyone.

How do we know that? She says so. Were, say, Clinton Foundation contributions considered personal? No one asked. It’s unlikely we’ll ever know. We have to trust her.

That’s not easy. Not just because of her history — William Safire wrote in 1996 that “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady . . . is a congenital liar” — but because of what she said in her emergency news conference on Tuesday. Among the things she listed as private were “personal communications from my husband and me.” Except that, as the Wall Street Journal reported the very same day, Bill Clinton’s spokesman said the former president has sent exactly two e-mails in his life, one to John Glenn, the other to U.S. troops in the Adriatic.

Mrs. Clinton’s other major declaration was that the server containing the e-mails — owned, controlled and housed by her — “will remain private.” Meaning: No one will get near them.

This she learned not from Watergate but from Whitewater. Her husband acquiesced to the appointment of a Whitewater special prosecutor. Hillary objected strenuously. Her fear was that once someone is empowered to search, the searcher can roam freely. In the Clintons’ case, it led to impeachment because when the Lewinsky scandal broke, the special prosecutor added that to his portfolio.

Hillary was determined never to permit another open-ended investigation. Which is why she decided even before being confirmed as secretary of state that only she would control her e-mail.

Her pretense for keeping just a single private e-mail account was “convenience.” She doesn’t like to carry around two devices.

But two weeks ago she said she now carries two phones and a total of four devices. Moreover, it takes about a minute to create two accounts on one device. Ray LaHood, while transportation secretary, did exactly that.

Her answers are farcical. Everyone knows she kept the e-mail private for purposes of concealment and, above all, control. For other State Department employees, their e-mails belong to the government. The records officers decide to return to you what’s personal. For Hillary Clinton, she decides.

The point of regulations is to ensure government transparency. The point of owning the server is to ensure opacity. Because she holds the e-mails, all document requests by Congress, by subpoena, by Freedom of Information Act inquiries have ultimately to go through her lawyers, who will stonewall until the end of time — or Election Day 2016, whichever comes first.

It’s a smart political calculation. Taking a few weeks of heat now — it’s only March 2015 — is far less risky than being blown up by some future e-mail discovery. Moreover, around April 1, the Clinton apologists will begin dismissing the whole story as “old news.”

But even if nothing further is found, the damage is done. After all, what is Hillary running on? Her experience and record, say her supporters.

What record? She’s had three major jobs. Secretary of state: Can you name a single achievement in four years? U.S. senator: Can you name a single achievement in eight years? First lady: her one achievement in eight years? Hillarycare, a shipwreck.

In reality, Hillary Clinton is running on two things: gender and name. Gender is not to be underestimated. It will make her the Democratic nominee. The name is equally valuable. It evokes the warm memory of the golden 1990s, a decade of peace and prosperity during our holiday from history.

Now breaking through, however, is a stark reminder of the underside of that Clinton decade: the chicanery, the sleaze, the dodging, the parsing, the wordplay. It’s a dual legacy that Hillary Clinton cannot escape and that will be a permanent drag on her candidacy.

You can feel it. It’s a recurrence of an old ailment. It was bound to set in, but not this soon. What you’re feeling now is Early Onset Clinton Fatigue. The CDC is recommending elaborate precautions. Forget it. The only known cure is Elizabeth Warren.


Peggy Noonan says she looks tired, not hungry.  On the other issue no one else will mention, I have wondered if Hillary's occasional disappearances had anything to do with so-called plastic surgery facial work being done.  Maybe that sounds sexist to ask, but it was fair for the media to ask Reagan if he colored his hair and use his denial as proof of dishonesty.  Below is the photo that ran with the Krauthammer column.  If she had work done, I think we can all agree it wasn't successful.  (Nothing personal against her, I am removing mirrors from my own home as aging sets in.)  Besides sexist, this sounds trivial, but a woman's aversion to photos like this being published, criticisms like this, and the efforts with makeup etc it takes to fight this might become the last straw as to why she doesn't run.


Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 13, 2015, 08:18:01 AM
March 13, 2015
Hey, Virginia Republicans, were you looking forward to voting in the 2016 presidential primary? Eh, we may not have one. Read all about the big decision facing the Old Dominion GOP.

Yup. Hillary Chose to Delete Consequential E-Mails

A lot of folks in Right-world think this is an extremely consequential revelation about the Clintons:

The Clintons play by their own set of rules. And in this case, the former Secretary of State explained, those rules bless her decision to erase some 30,000 emails from the family server despite knowing that the emails had become a subject of intense interest to congressional investigators. These were merely “private personal emails,” Clinton averred, “emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.” After she finished taking questions, Clinton’s staff disclosed that no one actually read through those 30,000-odd documents before she “chose not to keep” them.

As for why this might “seem like an issue,” the answer is not complicated. All federal employees have a legal obligation to preserve their work-related email–and the White House advises appointees to accomplish this by using official government addresses. Email sent to and from .gov accounts is generally archived. In this way, a consistent level of security is maintained. The nation’s history is preserved. Open-records laws are honored. And transparency gets a leg up on “Trust me.”

All this once made sense to Clinton. As a candidate for President in 2008, she included “secret White House email accounts” as part of her critique of the Bush Administration’s “stunning record of secrecy and corruption.” Now, however, Clinton is leaning heavily on “Trust me.” For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”

This strikes experts as a haphazard way of analyzing documents. Jason R. Baron, a former lawyer at the National Archives and Records Administration who is now an attorney in the Washington office of Drinker Biddle & Reath, says, “I would question why lawyers for Secretary Clinton would use keyword searching, a method known to be fraught with limitations, to determine which of the emails with a address pertained to government business. Any and all State Department activities–not just communications involving the keywords Benghazi or Libya–would potentially make an email a federal record. Given the high stakes involved, I would have imagined staff could have simply conducted a manual review of every document. Using keywords as a shortcut unfortunately leaves the process open to being second-guessed.”
Wait, there’s more, as Allahpundit explains:

Until last year, if you wanted to access State Department e-mail remotely, you needed a secure Blackberry issued by State for that purpose. And that Blackberry only handled department e-mail, i.e. State e-mail accounts actually did require a dedicated device. Apparently Hillary was right in thinking that, if she wanted to read private e-mail too, she really would have had to carry a second device.

But rather than do that and endure the hardship of fitting two four-ounce smartphones in her purse instead of one, she chose to defy security protocols and conduct all of her business, work and personal, from her unsecured private device. She didn’t care enough about security to have an official State e-mail account created for her in the first place so why would she care enough to read sensitive messages on an official, secured State Blackberry?

That adds a whole new level of risk to her e-mail habits, actually, since she was presumably using her personal Blackberry for work during overseas trips, when she was at
greater risk from foreign surveillance. Between that and the fact that State IT techs warned her about the vulnerability of her private server, there’s really no question that she knowingly, willingly created a major hole in national security simply because her selfish political desire to keep her messages away from the voting public was more important to her.

Yes, this blatantly violates the legal requirements.

I want to believe this will have serious consequences. But I don’t.

Who will run a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton over this? Our incoming attorney general? The confirmation vote is next week. Has any GOP senator even questioned Loretta Lynch whether she thinks this is a serious violation of the law and if, or how, the Department of Justice would investigate?

Do you think there’s a single U.S. Attorney -- all of whom were appointed by President Obama -- who wants to prosecute the Democratic presidential frontrunner?

Do you think there’s a jury that would convict her?
Title: Who is your daddy?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 13, 2015, 01:25:10 PM

Is Bill Chelsea's dad?
Title: Noonan: Hillary seems tired
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Peggy Noonan
Updated March 13, 2015 6:30 p.m. ET

Maybe we’re not stuck in Scandal Land.

For a while I’ve assumed Hillary Clinton would run for her party’s nomination and be a formidable candidate in the general election. After Tuesday’s news conference I’m not so sure.

Did she seem to you a happy, hungry warrior? She couldn’t make eye contact with her questioners, and when she did she couldn’t sustain it. She looked at the ceiling and down at notes, trying, it seemed, to stick to or remember scripted arguments. She was shaky. She couldn’t fake good cheer and confidence. It is seven years since she ran for office. You could see it.

Her claims—she stayed off the State Department email system for “convenience,” she thought “it would be easier to carry just one device,” her server “contains personal communications from my husband and me”—were so transparent, so quickly disprovable. Minutes later journalists were posting earlier statements in which she said she carries two devices, and The Wall Street Journal’s report saying Bill has sent only two emails in his life.

This wasn’t high-class spin. These were not respectable dodges. They didn’t make you grudgingly tip your hat at a gift for duplicity. I could almost feel an army of oppo people of both parties saying, “You can do better than that, Hillary!”

This wasn’t the work of a national, high-grade political-response team, it was the thrown-together mess of someone who knew she was guilty of self-serving actions, who didn’t herself believe what she was saying, who didn’t think the press would swallow it, and who didn’t appear to care.

She didn’t look hungry for the battle, she looked tired of the battle.

Everyone knows what the scandal is. She didn’t want a paper trail of her decisions and actions as secretary of state. She didn’t want to be questioned about them, ever. So she didn’t join the government’s paper-trail system, in this case the State Department’s official email system, which retains and archives records. She built her own private system and got to keep complete control of everything she’d done or written. She no doubt assumed no one outside would ask and no one inside would insist—she’s Hillary, don’t mess with her.

She knew the story might blow but maybe it wouldn’t, worth the chance considering the payoff: secrecy. If what she did became public she’d deal with it then. When this week she was forced to, she stonewalled: “The server will remain private.”

Is it outrageous? Of course. Those are U.S. government documents she concealed and destroyed. The press is not covering for her and hard questions are being asked because everyone knows what the story is. It speaks of who she is and how she will govern. Everyone knows it.

She knows it too.

At the news conference she seemed like a 20th-century figure in a 21st-century world. Her critics complain it’s the 1990s returning but it isn’t, it’s only the dark side of the ’90s without the era’s peace and prosperity.

Mrs. Clinton is said to be preparing to announce her candidacy for the presidency in three to four weeks. But did that look like the news conference of a candidate about to announce? It lacked any air of confidence or certitude. For a year the press has been writing about the burgeoning Clinton Shadow Campaign. Where’s the real one?

Defenses of Mrs. Clinton were ad hoc, improvised, flat-footed. It all looks disorderly, as if no one’s in charge, no one has drawn clear lines of responsibility or authority. We hear about loyalists, intimates, allies, pals, hangers-on, Friends of Hill. People buzz around her like bees on random paths to the queen.

In 2008 Barack Obama had impressive, disciplined people around him—David Axelrod,Robert Gibbs,David Plouffe. I remember thinking at the time that they were something unusual in politics: normal. Hillary has people like David Brock, a right-wing hit man who became a left-wing hit man. Who’s he supposed to do outreach to, the other weirdos?

Is this thing really happening? Is the much-vaunted campaign coming together?

After the news conference I thought what I never expected to think: Maybe she doesn’t really want this. Maybe that’s what this incompetence is meant to be signaling.

Here I will speculate, but imagine being Hillary Clinton right now:

Her mother, the rock of her life, died in 2011. In the past years she’s had health issues. She’s tired, having worked at the highest levels of American life the past 25 years. She’s in the middle of a scandal and, being Hillary, knows that others might pop along the way.

Add this: Maybe she thought her ideological hunger, which was real, would sustain her throughout her life, and it hasn’t.

Maybe what happened to her, in part, is the homes of her Manhattan mega-donors. She’s been in the grand townhouses and Park Avenue apartments since 1992. She’d go in and be met and she saw what they had. Beauty. Ease. Fine art of a particular, modern sort, the kind that is ugly, that reminds its owners that just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they don’t understand that life is hard, painful, incoherent. It is protective, cautionary, abstract and costs $20 million a picture.

But what lives they have! Grace and comfort and they don’t have to worry about the press, they don’t have to feel on the run, they don’t have to press the flesh with nobodies.

She’d like those things! But she went into “public service” and had to live on some bum-squat-Egypt Southern governor’s salary.

She wanted what they have. They’re her friends, no more talented than she. But they went to Wall Street and are oozing in dough. She stayed in the lane she was in. And she figures she missed out on the prosperity her husband presided over.

She has her causes—women’s rights, income inequality. But she can advance them in other ways.

Maybe she isn’t really hungry enough for the presidency anymore. And maybe she doesn’t have illusions anymore. She’s funded by Wall Street. Her opponent will be funded by Wall Street.

Maybe she’s of two minds about what she wants. But it’s not really hunger that’s propelling her now, its Newton’s law of inertia: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

Maybe she thinks about another line of work, a surprising fourth act. She likes to be served, be admired, be taken care of by staff. But you can get those things without being president. If you are wealthy, and she is now—and maybe that was the purpose of all those six-figure speeches—you can get those things easily.

Maybe she doesn’t, really, want to run. Maybe she’s not sure she can. Or maybe she’ll go for it: It’s what she’s been going toward all her life.

Maybe Democrats who saw that news conference will sense an opening and jump in. There’s the myth of the empty bench, but it won’t be empty if she leaves it. That’s another law of physics: Nature abhors a vacuum.

We all talk so much about the presidency and who’s got the best chance. Maybe it’s not Hillary. Maybe that’s over and no one knows, even her.
Popular on WSJ

Title: Valerie Jarret did it?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2015, 12:29:00 PM
Title: Re: Valerie Jarret did it?!?
Post by: DougMacG on March 16, 2015, 01:48:33 PM

White House non-denial denial:
... he answered with just two words: “Utter baloney.”
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2015, 02:06:17 PM
Apparently Pravda on the Hudson is backstroking; the article was "not without fault" , , , :roll:
Title: Re: Clinton Rumors (Who is your daddy?) snopes and politics
Post by: DougMacG on March 17, 2015, 10:24:58 AM

Is Bill Chelsea's dad?

+ 3) Valerie Jarrett leaked the HRC Clinton email info.

1)  Yes, the cute, blonde 16 year old looks like Bill, sounds totally possible and at least a little bit credible if a court is at least willing to hear the arguments (but they aren't).  A DNA test is either ordered or agreed to, paternity or not is determined quickly.  If this was true, then what happens?  Hillary is the victim which is how she broke out of the doldrums in the first place.  The new girl becomes a star.  Bill takes responsibility and lectures us about how we all need to do that, year of the woman, etc.  In other words, this would not be a political winner if true. In any case, that story disappeared from that link and SNopes says "fiction".  We need to be careful what we spread...

2)  Yes, if these photos are actual, she is a spitting image of Webb.  But...  it can't be proven, they'll never admit to it, it's totally off-limits politically, and it doesn't amount to anything even if true.  If Arkansas is at all like state law here, the married husband is the legal father of the child no matter the actual DNA. Hillary would be seen as justified, plus Chelsea is 35 now, and a mother.  It can only turn back on the meddling accusers.

3)  Yes, someone like Jarrett and the Obama machine might be one source of some of Hillary's problems.  The author of 'Blood Feud' is just as credible as either the Clintons or the Obamas, which is not saying much.  Again, it won't be admitted to or proven.  NYT isn't giving up sources.  The two camps are bound to split apart if they haven't already.  But our interest IMHO is to paint them both with the same political brush, just as Obama in 2008 was always running against George Bush.

It is important that we defeat these people directly on their failed political ideology, and not get tempted with all the shiny objects that come floating by, Obama's birth certificate and these stories, etc.  Distractions don't change these facts: we are badly over-taxed, over-regulated and are in the process of letting our constitution, sovereignty, national security, fiscal integrity, monetary system, work ethic and culture go to hell if we don't change course pretty soon.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 17, 2015, 10:56:35 AM
Hey, I was just having a moment of fun :-)

Anyway, here is today's Dick Morris:
Title: VDH: What other choice is there for Dems?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 17, 2015, 11:18:56 AM
second post

She’s weighed down with negatives, but do the Democrats have a choice?
by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

466520736-676x450Hillary Clinton will not run in 2016 on the slogan of continuing the hope-and-change policies of Barack Obama. The president has not enjoyed a 50 percent approval rating since a brief period after his reelection. And he is no friend of the Clintons.

Abroad, chaos in the Middle East, failed reset with Russia, leading from behind in Libya, and the deaths in Benghazi are no more winning issues than are, at home, the Obamacare fiasco, $9 trillion in new debt, and the alphabet soup of the AP, IRS, NSA, and VA scandals.

The Democratic party has also radically changed in just the six years Barack Obama has been in the White House, as it suffered the greatest losses in Congress since the 1920s. Other than hoping for a serious Republican scandal, the Democrats can only cling to two assumptions. One is historic voter turnout by minorities. The second is bloc voting on the basis of racial and gender solidarity.

If there is insufficient turnout, or if groups do not vote in lockstep on the basis of their racial or sexual identities, then — witness the 2010 and 2014 elections — Democratic candidates can get walloped.


A paradox arose in Obama’s efforts at encouraging bloc voting. To galvanize groups on the basis of their race, tribe, or gender, the Obama cadre has resorted to divisive language  — “punish our enemies,” “nation of cowards,” “my people” — that turns off independent voters and even some liberal white voters. When the president weighed in during the trial of the “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman by telling the nation that if he had had a son, that boy would have looked like Trayvon Martin, such an eerie tribal appeal bothered at least as many Americans as it may have stirred. Blacks and Latinos may appreciate Eric Holder’s constant sermonizing about white prejudice or Obama’s riffs on Skip Gates and Ferguson, but just as many other Americans do not believe that Gates was singled out on the basis of race and do not see how the thuggish Michael Brown, who had robbed a store and rushed a police officer, could conceivably become a civil-rights hero.

More importantly, there is no indication that Obama’s knack for firing up minority voters is transferrable in the same measure to other Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton. Once one appeals to tribal identity on the basis of race and appearance, one lives or dies with such superficial affinities. Hillary, in other words, is not Latino or black, and her winning 60 percent of the former or 85 percent of the latter would simply not be good enough under the formulaic racial bloc voting that Obama has bequeathed to Democrats. In addition, Obama seems to bestow voter resentment, as much as he does enthusiasm, on other Democrats. In 2014, it seemed that Obama harmed Democratic candidates a lot more than he helped them, especially when he reminded the electorate that his own policies were de facto on the ballot.

Nor are Obama’s bread-and-circuses issues catching on. Most Americans believe that the era of adolescence is over, and the next president will have to be an adult who puts away the golf clubs and ESPN monitors to clean up what will be $20 trillion in debt and a collapsed foreign policy. The public seems to accept that taxes can’t go much higher. No one thinks that borrowing trillions was a sign of government austerity. Too many, not too few, Americans appear to be hooked on entitlements. The borders are too porous, not too well guarded. Spiking the stock market was not the same as creating well-paying middle-class jobs. More gas and oil came despite, not because of, Obama.

What, then, is Hillary Clinton’s strategy for 2016?

Once again, mostly symbolism. Apart from Hillary and the idea of the first female president, the Democrats have little to turn to — which explains why Hillary may well be nominated even if her health and inclinations — and her disastrous performances — lean against it.

What won Barack Obama the presidency in 2008 was public anger over the Iraq war, fear following the 2008 Wall Street meltdown — and his own iconic status as potentially the first African-American president. Had the surge in Iraq succeeded a year earlier, or had the financial markets not crashed, or had the Democrats nominated a Joe Biden or a Howard Dean, then they probably would have lost the presidency.

Unfortunately for them, however, in 2016 there will be no incumbent Republican administration to scapegoat. “Bush did it” is now stale after six years. Blaming the Tea Party or the Republican House is likewise old hat. There is no success story to bandy about — no desire to bring on another Libya or expand Obamacare or borrow another $9 trillion.

There is only the war-on-women mantra that it is past time for a female president and Hillary has the best shot at making it. She is counting on the idea that blacks and Latinos will turn out for her as an icon of oppressed minorities in the manner they did for Obama, and that white working-class voters will forget the Democratic racial and gender pandering that is so often implicitly aimed against them.

On the face of it, the idea of Hillary Clinton as a feminist trailblazer should be ludicrous. Forty-four women have already served in the Senate since the first one did 93 years ago. When Hillary took over as secretary of state in 2009, there had not been a white male secretary since 1997.

Unlike national female politicians like Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton gained public exposure only by virtue of marriage to the powerbroker governor and then president Bill Clinton. Implicit in her messaging is a return to Bill Clinton’s economic good times of the 1990s and the implication that he might well be running half the show — a subliminal and quite sexist message.

Take away the Clinton name, and Hillary Rodham would be no more likely to become president than would Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. In her own public and private life Hillary Clinton has had few feminist credentials beyond her self-promotion. She never insisted on pay equity for her female staffers while senator. She did not object much when her husband’s political operatives sought to destroy the reputations of the women with whom he had liaisons — Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey — some of whom made powerful cases that they had been coerced into sexual encounters and then sullied and derided when they complained. For Hillary, if it was a question of believing that her husband had inappropriately solicited sex with a female subordinate or an otherwise vulnerable woman, or ensuring that her own meal ticket was secure, the choice was always a no-brainer.

Hillary has never been a very inspiring candidate. She is petulant when pressed, and appears at once bored and angry when cross-examined. Her stump speeches can be best characterized as high-pitched and punctuated with shrillness.

She does not so much habitually lie, as habitually see no problem with lying, as if she either cannot distinguish untruth from veracity, or simply believes that normal expectations of conduct should not apply to herself. Her mea culpas about the e-mail scandal were historic in that not a single declaration that she made could possibly be true: One does not need two smartphones to have two e-mail accounts; Ms. Clinton uses not just one but, by her own admission, four smart communication devices. The physical presence of security guards does not ensure a server’s security from cyber attacks. Bill Clinton does not use e-mail, and thus Hillary could not have communicated with him by that means as she claimed.

She seems unaware that no one has the right to decide when or if to comply with federal regulations when leaving office. No one has the right to be sole auditor of her own compliance with federal law. No other major Cabinet secretary in the Obama administration failed to have a .gov account. And on and on and on.

In sum, the Democrats have neither a winning agenda nor someone to blame this time around. They are stuck with only symbols and icons — and this time shaky ones at that. In 2016, choosing any candidate other than the potential first woman president would be as futile as running Joe Biden in 2008 instead of Barack Obama as the potential first African-American president. There would be no icon, not even a small chance of massive minority turnout, and certainly less bloc voting on the basis of tribe. In other words, for the Democrats, 2016 would hinge on just defending the Obama record and the principles of liberal theology — and thereby probably falling short on election day. It is either the worn-out idea of Hillary, warts and all, as both victim and trailblazer — or bust.
Title: Re: VDH: Hillary campaign slogan will not be "more of the same"?
Post by: DougMacG on March 17, 2015, 12:26:08 PM
Victor Davis Hanson: "...Clinton will not run in 2016 on the slogan of continuing the hope-and-change policies of Barack Obama.

That's right.  They're having trouble coming up with a winning theme. 

Previously, here:  "...[lack of] excitement of kicking off a campaign theme called 'more of the same'.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on March 17, 2015, 01:24:34 PM
Hey, I was just having a moment of fun :-)

Anyway, here is today's Dick Morris:

I enjoyed it too.  I have been wondering about the credibility of Blood Feud author Ed Klein, once of Newsweek and referenced by Dick Morris.  Here he was ripped pretty badly for accuracy and sourcing by liberal radio on his 2005 Hillary book.  They are a little unfair to him, but mostly make the point he is willing to just repeat juicy things, unverified, to make a buck.

False but true, the overall point stands; there is a divide between the Clinton and Obama camps and it will get worse when she has to define how she is different.
Title: Washington Post's David Ignatius, not certain she's going to be a candidate
Post by: DougMacG on March 17, 2015, 02:15:07 PM
One more liberal pundit, Washington Post's David Ignatius,  "I'm still not certain she's going to be a candidate."

Me neither.   :wink:
Title: Sinbad called out Hillary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 17, 2015, 03:40:38 PM
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons' email, Jack Lew can't remember
Post by: DougMacG on March 17, 2015, 09:24:41 PM
Secretary of the Treasury isn't really a position of slouch.  The position, high in the order of succession to the Presidency, was held by many distinguished Americans including Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Mellon, George Schultz.  Now enter Jack Lew of the most transparent administration.  Did he notice Hillary used an email address not of the variety.  He was, after all, Undersecretary of State reporting to her.  He isn't able to even say the words, I don't recall.


One other point on Clinton emails.  The system was set up by "President Clinton", is guarded 24/7 by Secret Service, is used presumably to take care of his official duties as former President among other things.  If so, then most likely it was paid for in full or in part with federal dollars, which makes it a public asset subject to oversight by Congress.  No?

Title: Bill and Hillary made nearly $20M from UAE
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2015, 09:45:54 AM
Title: Re: Bill and Hillary made nearly $20M from UAE
Post by: DougMacG on March 18, 2015, 08:56:09 PM

It's hard to fathom the scale of the Clinton misdeeds, but remember the other William Jefferson - the Louisiana Congressman who got caught with $90,000 CASH in his freezer.  It is quite a vivid kickback that people can visualize and remember.  This allegation is to line up 222 of those stocked freezers throughout the Clinton household when the Feds come in to search.  Instead of sneaking in, it is done by wire transfer right under the Feds' watch.

Maybe the new Attorney General will open an investigation.  Lol.
Title: Did Foregin Govts buy influence w Hillary?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2015, 11:05:18 AM
Did Foreign Governments Buy Influence With Hillary?

Hillary Clinton may be too mired in international connections to be an
unbiased president -- or hold any other public office for that matter. While
the Clintons couldn't accept donations from foreign governments to the Clinton
Foundation ( while Hillary was secretary
of state, it didn't stop politicians in high positions in the Ukrainian,
Chinese and Saudi Arabian governments from giving millions. The Wall Street

reports, "All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their
foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the
years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively
giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some
donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the
foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million." While every donor WSJ
spoke with claimed they were only giving to a charity they believed in, they
also had the potential to buy Clinton's attention. The Clintons certainly know
how to play this shadowy political game, as Hillary just happened to stall on
disclosing the donors

to her charity.
Title: Hillary Rodham Clinton, commodities trader extraordinaire (or pathological liar)
Post by: DougMacG on March 23, 2015, 08:43:25 AM
My first search to find Hillary commodity trading scandal background information brought up this thread as a top ten search result!  I've looked through some WSJ material from the 1990s but found neither the article Crafty referenced nor the editorial that I remember.  One interesting point at the start is that it was the NYT that first brought forward the story.  Her earliest explanation was that she got her information from the WSJ.  In response, the editors said we're flattered but no, it doesn't work that way.

In fact, the odds of doing what she did without cheating the system are one in 31 trillion against her, best case.  Assuming that the return is made in the most efficient way possible, this probability falls to approximately 1.5×10−16.
As the joke goes, so you're sayin' I got a shot!

What really was going on?

The person feeding her information and hand placing her trades with hindsight was chief counsel to one of the state's most powerful companies as her husband was Attorney General and leading candidate for Governor.  In crony corruption language, quid pro quo is the exchange of goods or services where one transfer is contingent upon the other.  "During Mr. Clinton's tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards."  (

Politico, March 10, 2015
A few days after Hubbell’s resignation [Hillary's law partner who plead guilty for bilking clients], the New York Times ran a lengthy story about Hillary’s commodity trades. Her aides and lawyers had finally provided financial records to the Times, but only after the newspaper made clear that it was preparing to publish a detailed account of her trading profits.

Initially, senior aides to the Clintons said in March 1994 that Hillary “based her trades on information in the Wall Street Journal.” That explanation was subsequently dropped. An aide to Hillary then said she had withdrawn from the market in the fall of 1979 because she had found trading too nerve-racking in the final months of her pregnancy. But another White House aide quickly declared that excuse “inoperative” after it was disclosed in April 1994 that Hillary made $6,500 in a commodities-trading venture in 1980 but failed to report that profit to the IRS.

Shortly after that, Hillary took responsibility—in her standard combination of singular acknowledgment and plural blame—for her aides’ confusing answers to reporters, saying they stemmed from her being away, working on other issues. “I probably did not spend enough time, get as precise,” she explained, “so I think that the confusion was our responsibility.”

[No criminal investigation was made because the statute of limitations had long expired before the tax returns were made available.]

They note the similarity to the private email scandal press conference and a similar one in 1994:

By mid-April [1994], Hillary’s approval ratings had dropped from 56 percent the year before to 44 percent, a historically low mark for a First Lady. Aides knew that Hillary’s stubborn reluctance to speak with the press was one of the sources of the public’s displeasure with her. For weeks, her aides and friends had urged her to con- front the negative reports and innuendos in an open, candid way. It was one thing to stay in the background, but by not providing Americans with an example different from her initially off-putting public appearance, she was leaving it to her political enemies to define her.
In late April, Hillary told her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, “I want to do it. Let’s call a press conference.”
“You know you’ll have to answer all questions, no matter what they throw at you,” Williams responded.
“I know. I’m ready.”

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2015, 10:06:59 AM
Nice work Doug!

"My first search to find Hillary commodity trading scandal background information brought up this thread as a top ten search result!"

Well done gentlemen!

 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 

Very good article, though I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ.  Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search.   What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons: commodities continued
Post by: DougMacG on March 23, 2015, 10:39:50 AM
Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone[known crook], the chief broker in 1978 at the Springdale, Ark., offices of Ray E. Friedman & Co., or Refco. In 1981, Mr. Bone was fined $100,000 and barred from trading for three years after an investigation of allegations that he had been allocating winning positions to favored clients.

Crafty: "...I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ.  Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search.   What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".  "

My subscription-based searching powers have expired but I will try with library resources when time permits.
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2015, 11:39:55 AM
Excellent find on the NYT article.  Email me about researching the WSJ for that article.
Title: Hillary can't type, so look at Huma and Cheryl's emails
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2015, 05:29:30 PM
Hillary Can't Type: Look To Huma's and Cheryl's Emails; See 2016 Buzz


Published on on March 23, 2015

Don't expect a gold mine of emails on Hillary's private account.  Why not? Because
she doesn't know how to type.  That's right.  She writes everything out in longhand.
 Really.  Anyone who has spent time in meetings with her knows about her endless
yellow pads.

So her emails will most likely turn out to be very short and quick.  She wouldn't
spend a lot of time pecking out long letters.  No way.  That's why the Benghazi
Committee needs to also look very closely at the emails on private accounts that
Hillary's closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, maintained.  Anything more
than a few lines were most likely written by someone else on her behalf.  There's a
reason why Hillary set up and used private emails with them for official business:
all the important emails were likely written by her staff.  Without access to them,
we won't know what was going on.

The Clintons never used the White House computer for their own work.  Hillary even
wrote (or copied) her book manuscripts in long hand.  Although ghost writer Barbara
Fineman was paid $120,000 for writing It Takes A Village, she proudly waved hundreds
of hand-written pages on yellow legal pads to pretend she wrote it all herself.  She
never acknowledged Fineman's work.

Bill can't type either.  When I wrote his 1995 State of the Union Speech, I typed it
on an IBM Selectric that the White House dug up from the basement.  He told me that
he didn't want me to put it in the official computer system, because then his staff
would see it.

So, he carefully copied every word in his distinctive left hand penmanship.  I still
have a copy of it.  Then he pretended that he had written it himself.

The Clintons have figured out every which way to avoid disclosure of what they want
to keep private.  So don't expect a smoking gun in Hillary's emails.

Look, instead, to Huma, Cheryl, Jake Sullivan, and Philippe Reines -- if they still

Here's Exactly Why Hillary Kept Secret Email Accounts In Her House: See How Justice
Dept. Defends In Court



If there is actually anyone on the planet who has any doubts about why Hillary kept
a secret email server in her Chappaqua house, guarded by the Secret Service, a quick
look at the Justice Department's response to Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information
request for Hillary's emails will clear things up.  You can read it here:

Judicial Watch wants emails related to the Iran sanctions.  In defending the State
Department for failing to produce and records and not disposing Hillary's secret
emails, the Justice Department makes the case that any documents that are not under
their control are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act and, therefore, the
State Department has no obligation to search them.  Since Hillary -- and not the
State Department -- controlled them, they have no obligation to do anything with

The government relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case against Hillary's newest pal,
Henry Kissinger.  Kissinger had his secretaries listen in to all of his phone calls
and take notes.

Hillary knew that would be their response and that's precisely why she went to the
trouble and expense of creating her own server.  The notoriously cheap Clintons,
used to the government and rich friends paying their tabs, made a point of leaking
that President Clinton paid for the server.  That's a first.  But it's important
because, presumably, if the Government paid for it, they could assert control.

Hillary and her lawyers thought of everything.  And now the Justice Department is
following the script that Hillary anticipated when she set up the secret system in
2009 just before she was sworn in as Secretary of State.  She wasn't taking any
chances that some government document could undermine her anticipated presidential

And so far, it's working.  Here's what the Justice Department argued to the court:

"FOIA creates no obligation for an agency to search for and produce records that it
does not possess and control. See Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the
Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152, 154-55 (1980); Nat'l Sec. Archive v. Archivist of the
U.S., 909 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office
of Science and Technology Policy, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2015 WL 967549, at *4-5
(D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2015). It certainly provides no basis for a court to issue a
subpoena for such documents." (Emphasis added.)

That's what Hillary is counting on.

But now the State Department has the emails that Hillary hand-picked to turn over.
So, it's hard to argue that they don't have to search at least those documents.
Instead, they want to be able to post them all on a web site.  Why?  That way we
will be the ones who have to search through 55,000 pages, not them.  If they were
required to comply with FOI, they would have to identify the responsive documents.
Oh, and by the way, Hillary's decision to hand over hard copies, instead of
electronic files was another ploy to make searching the documents more difficult.
There's no way to do a word search on manual documents.  She's not going to make
this one easy. It's typical Hillary -- hide, obfuscate, delay, stretch the legal
boundaries while screaming about the rights to keep private emails about your
mother's funeral.

The government's reliance on the Kissinger case is interesting.  Although the
Supreme Court recognized that transcripts of Kissinger's phone calls were official
records that were wrongfully removed, it found that only government agencies -- and
not the press or individuals -- could sue for their return.  Kissinger had taken the
transcripts from the State Department and placed them in a safe on the estate of
Nelson Rockefeller. (Conspiracy theorists, take note).  Eventually, he gave them to
the Library of Congress, which is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.  He
signed an agreement barring public access until either 25 years after the donation
or 5 years after his death -- whatever is later.  But just recently, Kissinger
agreed that the transcripts and other papers of his can be made public.  Even
Kissinger finally came around to recognize the public's right to documents created
in the course of official government business.  Hillary should follow in his

Things are definitely heating up, but it's just the beginning.  Judicial Watch also
requested access to Hillary's server.  Last week, the Benghazi Committee subpoenaed
the server.  There are multiple pending Freedom of Information requests for her
emails, And the Benghazi Committee is looking at other people's emails, too -- like
Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.  Stay tuned.
Title: T. Sowell: Free of accomplishments, full of setbacks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2015, 09:47:33 AM
Hillary’s Record: Free of Accomplishments, Full of Setbacks
by Thomas Sowell
March 24, 2015 12:00 AM

The case for her in 2016 boils down to demographic symbolism. It is amazing how a simple question can cause a complex lie to collapse like a house of cards. The simple question was asked by Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel, and it was addressed to two Democrats. He asked what has Hillary Clinton ever accomplished. The two Democrats immediately sidestepped the question and started reciting their talking points in favor of Hillary. But O’Reilly kept coming back to the fact that nothing they were talking about was an accomplishment. For someone who has spent her entire adult life in politics, including being a senator and then a secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has nothing to show for all those years — no significant legislation of hers that she got passed in the Senate, and only an unbroken series of international setbacks for the United States during her time as secretary of state. Before Barack Obama entered the White House and appointed Mrs. Clinton secretary of state, al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq had notified their higher-ups, stationed in Pakistan, that their cause was lost in Iraq and that there was no point sending more men there. Hosni Mubarak was in charge in Egypt. He posed no threat to American or Western interests in the Middle East or to Christians within Egypt or to Israel. But the Obama administration threw its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood, which took over and began terrorizing Christians in Egypt and promoting hostility to Israel. In Libya next door, the Qaddafi regime had already given up its weapons of mass destruction, after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But President Obama’s foreign policy, carried out by Secretary of State Clinton, got Qaddafi removed, after which Libya became a terrorist haven where an American ambassador was killed, for the first time in decades. The rationale for getting rid of Middle East leaders who posed no threat to American interests was that they were undemocratic and their people were restless. But there are no democracies in the Middle East, except for Israel. Moreover, the people were restless in Iran and Syria, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy did nothing to support those who were trying to overthrow these regimes. It would be only fair to balance this picture with foreign-policy triumphs of the Obama-Clinton team. But there are none. Not in the Middle East, not in Europe, where the Russians have invaded the Crimea, and not in Asia, where both China and North Korea are building up threatening military forces, while the Obama administration has been cutting back on American military forces. Hillary Clinton became an iconic figure by feeding the media and the Left the kind of rhetoric they love. Barack Obama did the same and became president. Neither had any concrete accomplishments beforehand besides rhetoric, and both have had the opposite of accomplishments after taking office. They have something else in common. They attract the votes of those people who vote for demographic symbolism — “the first black president” to be followed by “the first woman president” — and neither is to be criticized, lest you be denounced for racism or sexism. It is staggering that there are sane adults who can vote for someone to be president of the United States as if they are in school, just voting for “most popular boy” or “most popular girl” — or, worse yet, voting for someone who will give them free stuff. Whoever holds that office makes decisions involving the life and death of Americans and — especially if Iran gets a nuclear arsenal — the life and death of this nation. It took just two nuclear bombs — neither of them as powerful as those available today — to get a very tough nation like Japan to surrender. Anyone familiar with World War II battles in the Pacific knows that it was not unusual for 90 percent of the Japanese troops defending Iwo Jima or other islands to fight to the death, even after it was clear that American troops had them beaten. When people like that surrender after two nuclear bombs, do not imagine that today’s soft Americans — led by the likes of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton — will fight on after New York and Chicago have been reduced to radioactive ashes. Meanwhile, ISIS and other terrorists are giving us a free demonstration of what surrender would mean. But perhaps we can kick the can down the road, and leave that as a legacy to our children and grandchildren, along with the national debt. — Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is © 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Read more at:
Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2015, 06:24:16 AM
Title: Commodity Straddles and The Mystery of Hillary's Trades, WSJ, April 1994
Post by: DougMacG on March 26, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
...  I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ.  Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search.   What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".

Emailed to me this morning by James Taranto, Deputy Editor of the WSJ.   )

The Mystery of Hillary's Trades
By David L. Brandon
1724 words
7 April 1994
The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright (c) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)
As former head of the IRS chief counsel's Commodities Industry Specialization Team in the mid-1980s, I have followed with great interest the media stories on Hillary Clinton's excellent adventures in the commodities markets. As a proud capitalist and free market proponent (and an avid beef eater), I would be the first in line to salute this woman's success with cattle futures. But based on my years of experience with these markets, her story just doesn't add up. In fact, the chances of someone making almost $100,000 in the futures markets on her first try are about as great as walking into a casino in Las Vegas, hitting the million-dollar jackpot on your first try at the slots, then walking out never to play again. It just doesn't happen that way.

For those unfamiliar with the details of Mrs. Clinton's remarkable venture into the commodities markets, she allegedly made more than $99,000 in cattle futures (and other commodities) in late 1978 and 1979, withdrawing from trading just before the markets went bust. No explanation has been offered of how Mrs. Clinton managed to satisfy state laws that require futures investors to demonstrate a minimum net income and net worth, nor how a novice could have such uncanny timing.

There is, in fact, a much more probable explanation for Mrs. Clinton's good fortune. The media have already suggested that trades may have been moved to Mrs. Clinton's account after gains had been realized. However, the stories thus far have not clearly focused on a common trading strategy called a "straddle" that was very much in vogue at the time.

Straddles have the unique ability to produce exactly equal and offsetting gains and losses that can be transferred or used by the straddle trader for a variety of purposes. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, straddles were used for all kinds of illegal activities, ranging from tax evasion to money-laundering and bribes. In fact, this activity prompted a number of legal and regulatory changes by the Reagan administration to curb the abuses.

Although it sounds somewhat esoteric, a commodities straddle is a relatively simple trading device.

A commodities futures contract is nothing more than an agreement between two parties to buy or sell a certain type of commodity (in Mrs. Clinton's case, cattle) for a stated price on some date in the future. If the price of the commodity goes up before the contract delivery date, the individual who agreed to buy the commodity will realize a gain equal to the difference between the current price and the contract price. The individual who agreed to sell will realize a loss in an equal amount. Conversely, if the price goes down, the buyer will lose and the seller will gain.

A straddle is created when an investor enters into contracts to both buy and sell the same commodity. In this case, any gain on one contract will be exactly offset by a loss on the opposite contract. While straddle trading today is used in a variety of legitimate ways, these transactions lend themselves to all sorts of abuses as well. Before regulatory changes in the 1980s, it was common to enter into straddles to wipe out large capital gains for tax purposes. For example, an investor who realized a $100,000 capital gain in the stock market might enter into a large straddle in the commodities market. When the commodity price moved, the investor would close the loss leg of the straddle and realize a $100,000 loss, which offset his gain in the stock market. The investor was not required to report the unrealized $100,000 gain in the opposite leg of the straddle until that leg was closed in the following year. Typically, the investor entered into another straddle in the following year, thereby indefinitely rolling over the capital gain into subsequent years.

Another ploy common during that time required the assistance of a friendly broker. An investor could create a straddle using two separate investment accounts with his broker. After the straddle had moved, so that a gain and an offsetting loss had been created, the friendly broker simply wrote in the name of the investor's tax-exempt retirement fund on the account that held the gain leg of the straddle. The result was that a loss was realized that was reported on the investor's tax return, while the gain went unreported in the tax-exempt retirement account.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the IRS began noticing large numbers of individual tax returns that curiously showed commodities losses just big enough to wipe out unrelated capital gains; no corresponding commodities gains, which would suggest a straddle, ever appeared on subsequent returns. Even more curiously, the profile of these investors always had one thing in common, which was limited experience or no prior experience in commodities trading. In the early 1980s, an IRS agent in Chicago thought to look into one taxpayer's retirement fund and, of course, found the hidden gain leg of the straddle.

After that experience, the IRS redoubled its efforts to seek out thousands of missing straddle gains. It found them in retirement accounts, in London, in the Cayman Islands -- almost anywhere a taxpayer thought he might hide them from the IRS. With respect to these thousands of mysterious, isolated commodities transactions that showed up on tax returns, the IRS uncovered some form of questionable trading in virtually 100% of the cases it investigated. Well before the close of the 1980s, the IRS had assessed more than $7 billion in delinquent taxes and penalties attributable to these transactions and eventually settled these cases out of court for approximately $3.5 billion.

While most of the IRS's efforts were directed at finding hidden gains of the ubiquitous straddle, the trading device could just as easily be used to openly transfer gains while hiding the offsetting loss. If someone desired to make an illicit payment to another party, a straddle could be used to accomplish this purpose with no incriminating or suspicious-looking bank withdrawals or deposits. In fact, the IRS found numerous incidents of straddles being used for money-laundering purposes.

Does Mrs. Clinton's trading activity fit the profile of the illegitimate straddle trader? She was a novice in the commodities markets who, against all odds, realized large gains. Although she intermittently realized losses, it does not appear that she ever had to risk her own capital beyond her initial $1,000 deposit, which itself may have been insufficient to cover even her first transaction (which netted her $5,300). According to the trading records released by the White House, most of Mrs. Clinton's gains were recorded as intra-month transactions. This means that these records include no information regarding key elements of the trade, such as the type and quantity of the contracts, acquisition dates, acquisition prices, etc. Such information is needed to determine whether trades were part of a prearranged straddle.

It also appears that Mrs. Clinton's broker, Robert L. "Red" Bone, was no stranger to the spicier practices of commodities trading, according to The Wall Street Journal's front-page article last Friday.

It seems more than coincidental that Mr. Bone was a former employee of Tyson Foods and that Mrs. Clinton's investment adviser, James Blair, was the company's legal counsel. Tyson, the poultry concern, is one of the largest employers in the state of Arkansas. The fact that the Clintons withheld disclosing only those tax returns that included their commodities gains until the transactions were reported by the New York Times in February also appears quite suspicious. From my standpoint as a former government staff attorney with extensive experience in these matters, Mrs. Clinton's windfall in the late 1970s has all the trappings of pre-arranged trades.

How would a straddle have been used in Mrs. Clinton's case? The Journal has already reported that gains theoretically could have been transferred to Mrs. Clinton's account, while "others" may have absorbed losses. Such a transaction could be accomplished with a straddle.

A party desiring to transfer cash to another's personal account for legal or illegal purposes could enter into a straddle in a particularly volatile commodity, such as cattle futures in the late 1970s. After gains and losses were generated in the opposite sides of the straddle, the gain side would be marked to the beneficiary's account, while the loss side would remain in the account of the contributor. The contributor might even be entitled to use the loss to offset other gains. Such a transaction would be not only well-hidden from government authorities but potentially tax-deductible.

No direct evidence of wrongdoing has been produced in the case of Mrs. Clinton's trading activity. In fact, no conclusive evidence of anything has been produced. In order to settle the legitimate questions surrounding her trades, a satisfactory explanation is needed for her apparently low initial margin deposit and whether the requirements relating to an investor's minimum net income and net worth were satisfied. In addition, the details of her numerous intra-month trades should be provided, as well as the details of the trades of persons who may have had a special interest in how well she did. If it is discovered that certain interested parties happened to realize losses in cattle futures at the same time, and they were comparable in size to the gains reported by Mrs. Clinton, this would amount to a "smoking gun."

This is not a matter of partisan politics. Even if the public had never heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the circumstances surrounding her unusual good fortune would still appear suspicious to anyone awake to abuses of the commodities markets. In this writer's experience, the normal trading world just doesn't work that way.


Mr. Brandon was a career attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service from 1983 to 1989. During that time he also served as head of that department's Commodity Industry Specialization Team, which was responsible for coordinating and developing the IRS's legal positions on tax issues arising in connection with commodities transactions.

Dow Jones & Company

Document j000000020011029dq470095u

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: ccp on March 26, 2015, 11:21:23 AM
None of this stuff will stop the Clinton machine.  No matter what we hear the first response is, "no laws were broken".  Every single time and the machine rolls ahead.

The MSM fawns and the opposition just twists and wrings our hands in frustration.   

Title: Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
Post by: DougMacG on March 26, 2015, 02:04:50 PM
None of this stuff will stop the Clinton machine.  No matter what we hear the first response is, "no laws were broken".  Every single time and the machine rolls ahead.
The MSM fawns and the opposition just twists and wrings our hands in frustration.  

Yes, but laws WERE broken.  

That was Politico and NYTimes bringing it up again.

The Clinton machine was impotent in 2007-2008.  Their last national win was in 1996 when the youngest voters of 2016 were -2 years old.  Even then, with Bill's magic and a very weak opponent, they never won 50% of the vote.  

And she doesn't have his skills.
Title: So what is anybody going to do about this?
Post by: ccp on March 28, 2015, 07:50:02 AM

Nothing.   Clinton has obstructed justice for decades.   Now she is the Democrat Party's premiere candidate.   Unless we have an O'Malley/Warren ticket challenge.

Could anyone imagine if a lower level government employee did this?
Title: Hillbillary, Comparing her to Nixon is so unfair! (to Nixon)
Post by: DougMacG on March 29, 2015, 11:00:29 AM
Did Hillary Clinton destroy evidence in 'wiping clean' her email server?  [Yes.]
Friday was the deadline for Hillary Clinton to respond to a congressional subpoena for emails and documents related to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. She provided nothing since her email server had been wiped clean.

Her server is not the only place where her emails resided.  Deletion alone doesn't destroy all the information.  The steps they took to go further than that like demagnetization or dropping it into the Hudson River in the middle of the night are bound to look bad politically.  I share ccp's concern,  but don't believe this goes away just because she is a Clinton.  I saw one of her hacks on Meet the depressed tell us to move on and talk about issues that are important, but I did not see even the mainstreamers buying it.

If we are being outsmarted here by the Clintons, it can only be that they manufactured this scandal intentionally to distract from larger ones still hidden. 

This is only one of her problems.  She lacks the political skills of Bill, Barack, Reagan, Rubio, etc.    Her policies don't work.  She lacks separation from Obama.  They hid their records and stole from the White House last time they were leaving.  We still don't know what Bill was doing on Pedaphilia Island or where Hillary was help was not sent to Benghazi.  She has resume, but lacks accomplishments.   Not just as Secretary of State, but her policy debut as First Lady, and her experience when they took majority in the Senate.  Everything they did made things worse.  Her Russian reset didn't work.  Her Libyan overthrow didn't work.  Her economic ideas failed.  Her health care debut blew up.  Even the commodities straddles remain unanswered.   She won't be able to say anything like the most transparent administration ever is coming without even her own supporters breaking out in laughter.  Not exactly a dream come true for America in 2016.

All she can honestly is what an aide said about them, they lie with such ease.
Title: George Will, Remembrance of Clintons past
Post by: DougMacG on March 29, 2015, 11:14:34 AM
I should add that Bill doesn't have the political skills of the Bill that we remember anymore either.

George Will piles on and remember his Washington Post columns extend out further than what right wing sites can reach.  He politely concludes with "voters will make an informed choice".  

When she announces she isn't running (and leaves the scene gracefully) we can finally let all this Clinton ugliness rest.  George Will is kind to say Bill looks grandfatherly.  The photo with it makes him look great-grandfatherly.

An abscess of anger seems to gnaw at Hillary Clinton, but the reasons for her resentments remain unclear. The world’s oldest party, which governed the nation during two world wars and is the primary architect of America’s regulatory and redistributive state, is eager to give her its presidential nomination, in recognition of . . . what?

The party, adrift in identity politics, clings, as shipwrecked sailors do to floating debris, to this odd feminist heroine. Wafted into the upper reaches of American politics by stolid participation in her eventful marriage to a serial philanderer, her performance in governance has been defined by three failures.

Her husband, having assured the 1992 electorate that voting for him meant getting “two for the price of one,” entrusted to her the project that he, in a harbinger of the next Democratic president’s mistake, made his immediate priority — health-care reform. Then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) urged him to begin with welfare reform, just as wise Democrats wanted President Obama to devote 2009 to economic recovery rather than health care, perhaps sparing the nation six years and counting of economic sluggishness.

Hillary Clinton enveloped her health-care deliberations in secrecy, assembling behind closed doors battalions of the best and the brightest — think of many Jonathan Grubers weaving complexities for the good of, but beyond the comprehension of, the public. When their handiwork was unveiled, it was so baroque that neither house of a Congress controlled by her party would even vote on it. This was one reason that in 1994 Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years — a harbinger of 2010, when Obamacare helped end Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as the first female speaker.

Clinton’s Senate interlude was an uneventful prelude to her 2008 presidential quest, which earned her, as a consolation prize, the State Department. There her tenure was defined by the “reset” with Russia and by regime-change-by-bombers in Libya.

Russia has responded by violently dismembering a European nation. Libya was the object of “humanitarian intervention,” an echo of Bill Clinton’s engagement in the Balkans that appealed to progressives because it was connected only tenuously, if at all, to U.S. national interests. Today, Libya is a humanitarian calamity, a failed state convulsed by civil war and exporting jihadists.

These episodes supposedly recommend a re-immersion in Clintonism, a phenomenon that in 2001 moved The Post to say, more in anger than in sorrow, that “the Clintons’ defining characteristic” is that “they have no capacity for embarrassment.” This judgment was rendered as two episodes were demonstrating that the Clintons in power were defined by their manner of leaving it.

Bill Clinton punctuated his presidency by pardoning the late Marc Rich, a fugitive who 17 years earlier had been indicted for tax evasion, fraud and racketeering. Rich also traded with