Why nearly 100,000 people are calling for Bill Clinton’s arrest

dem_2016_clinton1

Bill Clinton’s arrest for violating Massachusetts election law on Super Tuesday by campaigning close to — and even inside — polling places.

 

 

Nearly 100,000 people have signed an online petition calling for Bill Clinton’s arrest for violating Massachusetts election law on Super Tuesday by campaigning close to — and even inside — polling places.

The drive was launched by supporters of Bernie Sanders, who accused Bubba of stumping for his wife, Hillary, within 150 feet of a polling location in New Bedford and inside others in Newton and Boston’s West Roxbury neighborhood.

“This is a call for the immediate arrest of President Bill Clinton for clear, knowing and egregious violation of the campaign laws to swing an election in a significant way. It could not be any clearer in the Massachusetts General Laws,” the petition states.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin’s website says, “On Election Day, certain activities are prohibited within the polling location and within 150 feet of the polling place,” including the “solicitation of votes for or against, or any other form of promotion or opposition of, any person or political party.”

The Sanders supporters said photos prove the ex-prez violated the law by attending a rally outside a polling place in New Bedford and entering polling stations in the other two communities.

“Although the spokesperson for Bill Clinton denies that he was ever inside a polling place, photos and video show him clearly greeting and talking up election workers inside,” the petition reads.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin’s website says, “On Election Day, certain activities are prohibited within the polling location and within 150 feet of the polling place,” including the “solicitation of votes for or against, or any other form of promotion or opposition of, any person or political party.”

The Sanders supporters said photos prove the ex-prez violated the law by attending a rally outside a polling place in New Bedford and entering polling stations in the other two communities.

“Although the spokesperson for Bill Clinton denies that he was ever inside a polling place, photos and video show him clearly greeting and talking up election workers inside,” the petition reads.

Galvin, a Democrat, downplayed the controversy.

“He had the right to go into the polling locations, and say ‘Hello’ to workers who were there. The issue is, you can’t go inside and say, ‘Vote for my wife,’ or ‘Vote for Hillary,’ ” Galvin told the Boston Globe.

The Globe reported that’s precisely what Clinton did.

“Pull the lever for Hillary,” he told one voter at the Boston polling place, the paper reported.

In New Bedford, he thanked his wife’s supporters with a bullhorn just outside a polling place.

“Thank you all for participating. I especially thank those of you who are supporting Hillary,” he shouted, the Globe reported.

Petitioners fired back at Galvin’s dismissal of the complaints.

“Bill Clinton does not vote in Massachusetts, and would have no other business in a polling station on election day besides campaigning for his wife,” the petition on Change.org states.

 

BREAKING: SMOKING GUN Docs Show What Hillary Clinton Knew About Benghazi All Along (WHOA!)

1hillary

By POLITICAL INSIDER

Petition Image
Judicial Watch
Government Reform
U.S. Congress : Demand Answers on Clinton Corruption
News Editor
Petition By:
Judicial Watch

static2.politico.com

The conservative lawyers at Judicial Watch just blew the lid off of the massive Obama White House cover-up after the Islamic terrorist attack at the American Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. This is Earth shattering news, and has devastating consequences for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The damning files obtained by Judicial Watch show State Department officials under Hillary Clinton’s command blatantly lied about the attack which killed four Americans in November 2012. It was not, as once stated, an escalation of a demonstration against an absurd YouTube video but rather a coordinated assault by Islamist terrorists on the US Embassy in Tunisia.

The State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center, also know DSCC, produced a memo obtained by the Washington-based government watchdog group entitled, “Emergency Message to U.S. Citizens: Demonstrations.” The DSCC would have known the true nature of the attack since it monitored the situation via drone.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-smoking-gun-docs-show-hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-along-whoa/#ixzz3q5iKDzff

hc_CORRUPTION

The message is identical to the emergency message issued by the U.S. Embassy in Tunis and archived on the embassy’s website.

The emergency message reads in the first paragraph: “On September 11, 2012, violent demonstrations took place at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt and at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in damage in both locations and casualties in Benghazi. Media reports indicate that demonstrations may take place at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis on Wednesday, September 12, 2012.”

‘They knew’

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the DSCC “clearly knew in real time that a full-fledged terrorist attack was taking place on September 11 at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, and the American people deserve to be told the truth.”

“We are now into the fourth year of a massive Obama administration cover-up,” Fitton said.

He said the DSCC communiqués “may further help unravel the Obama administration’s growing web of deceit.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-smoking-gun-docs-show-hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-along-whoa/#ixzz3q5ipfaSH

via World Net Daily

Fitton goes on to explain how this was a coordinated effort to isolate the potential damage this could cause to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Judicial Watch cites testimony from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb under oath to the House Oversight Committee on Oct. 10, 2012, to make the case that the DSCC bureaucrats knew EXACTLY what was the cause of the attack:

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-smoking-gun-docs-show-hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-along-whoa/#ixzz3q5ivlfqN

The attack began at approximately 9:40 pm local time. Diplomatic Security agents inside the compound heard loud voices outside the walls, followed by gunfire and an explosion. Dozens of attackers then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity. They forced their way through the pedestrian gate, and used diesel fuel to set fire to the Libyan 17th February Brigade members’ barracks, and then proceeded toward the main building.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-smoking-gun-docs-show-hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-along-whoa/#ixzz3q5j3dWIH

Judical Watch’s Fitton replied to what that testimony (above) means:

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-smoking-gun-docs-show-hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-along-whoa/#ixzz3q5jA5apU

You are making people think they only needed to worry about demonstrations, when the truth was Americans in North Africa needed to know the night before Benghazi was hit by an intense terrorist attack, that came on violently, with heavily armed al-Qaida-backed militia carrying AK-47s and RPGs. ‘Be Warned’ should have been the message, ‘There was a terrorist attack, and you should be very careful right now.

The Benghazi story is now out in the open for all to see. And it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is at fault.

Are you ashamed by how poorly this White House has handled foreign policy? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-smoking-gun-docs-show-hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-along-whoa/#ixzz3q5jIuq7N

Clinton Foundation: ‘We made mistakes’

 

150220_POL_Hillary.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge

Hillary Clinton running for president

 

 

There was Clinton (notably more at ease than during her first swing through Iowa a week earlier) in friendly New Hampshire last Monday and Tuesday, taking diligent caseworker notes as “everyday Americans” shared stories of economic anxiety. This is the empathetic, humble Hillary of the 2000 listening tour she took around New York state and her later, better primaries in 2008. (It’s not a subtle message: Every scheduling advisory issued by her fledgling 2016 campaign now ends with some version of this line, emailed to reporters this weekend in advance of Clinton’s next field trip: “The trip is the latest evidence that Hillary Clinton will work to earn every vote, run hard in the 2016 Nevada Caucus, and take nothing for granted.”)

But that effort is being undermined by a parallel storyline, and the well-executed New Hampshire trip was blown off basic cable by a barrage of stories Thursday documenting questionable practices by the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation — and illuminating once again what appeared to be the same old indifference to boundaries between charity, politics and wealth.

In the long term, the greatest beneficiary of Clinton’s struggles might be Marco Rubio, two decades her junior and hauling a much lighter baggage train than Clinton or Republican rival Jeb Bush. The 43-year-old first-term Florida senator surged (perhaps momentarily) to the head of the GOP pack a week after his entrance into the campaign, boosted by his capacity to run hard to the right without employing the polarizing hard-right language that scares off swing voters and big, mainstream donors. He’s new and knows how to play it up: The key line in his stump speech, borrowed from Obama ’08, is: “Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.”

It is precisely because most people don’t know enough about the young Florida Republican to ask whether there’s a less attractive Real Marco lurking behind that loquacious facade. That’s likely to change, especially when opponents begin highlighting his contortions on immigration reform, delving into his record as speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives and what the Tampa Bay Times described as a “pattern of blending personal and political spending” over the years in using state of Florida credit cards and political committee cash for travel and other expenses.

But the Clinton stories are a different order of magnitude, with no fewer than three big exposés breaking last Thursday alone: a New York Times investigation into a previously unreported Clinton family foundation donation by a Russian oligarch looking to get federal approval to expand U.S. operations (requiring Clinton State Department approval); a Reuters report that the foundation would have to refile years of tax returns because of errors and omissions; and a Washington Post story revealing that Bill Clinton earned $26 million in speaking fees from donors to the family’s foundation.

Most of the initial reports focused on her husband’s actions, and the Clinton campaign said there isn’t a “shred” of evidence she was involved, but no matter: Republicans sought to draw the clearest line possible to Hillary Clinton, whatever the paucity of public evidence. “There is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20 percent of America’s uranium production to Russia? And then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails,” Mitt Romney told radio host Hugh Hewitt on the day the Times story appeared.

The Clinton people pointed out, rightly, that there’s not (yet) any paper trail linking any decision she made at Foggy Bottom to Bill Clinton’s machinations. But Romney wasn’t freelancing; he was capturing the Republican zeitgeist — and amplifying a GOP message (the Clintons are incorrigibly corrupt) — articulated to me by GOP operatives associated with three campaigns I talked with last week.

And several top Democrats told me they were worried, too, about the accumulation of stories — “at some point the weight just pulls everything down,” one told me. Then again, James Carville, who has spent decades fending off the kind of Clinton stories that popped up last week, thinks the recent stories fit into an old pattern of shoot-and-miss. “All of this is spaghetti journalism; throw some spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks,” he insists. “It’s always something that ends up with nothing.”

• • •

Hillary Clinton’s enemies, and more than a few of her friends, believe the story will resonate — if only because she has always been at the center of most of the family’s major financial decisions.

But that effort is being undermined by a parallel storyline, and the well-executed New Hampshire trip was blown off basic cable by a barrage of stories Thursday documenting questionable practices by the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation — and illuminating once again what appeared to be the same old indifference to boundaries between charity, politics and wealth.In the long term, the greatest beneficiary of Clinton’s struggles might be Marco Rubio, two decades her junior and hauling a much lighter baggage train than Clinton or Republican rival Jeb Bush. The 43-year-old first-term Florida senator surged (perhaps momentarily) to the head of the GOP pack a week after his entrance into the campaign, boosted by his capacity to run hard to the right without employing the polarizing hard-right language that scares off swing voters and big, mainstream donors. He’s new and knows how to play it up: The key line in his stump speech, borrowed from Obama ’08, is: “Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.”It is precisely because most people don’t know enough about the young Florida Republican to ask whether there’s a less attractive Real Marco lurking behind that loquacious facade. That’s likely to change, especially when opponents begin highlighting his contortions on immigration reform, delving into his record as speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives and what the Tampa Bay Times described as a “pattern of blending personal and political spending” over the years in using state of Florida credit cards and political committee cash for travel and other expenses.But the Clinton stories are a different order of magnitude, with no fewer than three big exposés breaking last Thursday alone: a New York Times investigation into a previously unreported Clinton family foundation donation by a Russian oligarch looking to get federal approval to expand U.S. operations (requiring Clinton State Department approval); a Reuters report that the foundation would have to refile years of tax returns because of errors and omissions; and a Washington Post story revealing that Bill Clinton earned $26 million in speaking fees from donors to the family’s foundation.Most of the initial reports focused on her husband’s actions, and the Clinton campaign said there isn’t a “shred” of evidence she was involved, but no matter: Republicans sought to draw the clearest line possible to Hillary Clinton, whatever the paucity of public evidence. “There is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20 percent of America’s uranium production to Russia? And then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails,” Mitt Romney told radio host Hugh Hewitt on the day the Times story appeared.

The Clinton people pointed out, rightly, that there’s not (yet) any paper trail linking any decision she made at Foggy Bottom to Bill Clinton’s machinations. But Romney wasn’t freelancing; he was capturing the Republican zeitgeist — and amplifying a GOP message (the Clintons are incorrigibly corrupt) — articulated to me by GOP operatives associated with three campaigns I talked with last week.

And several top Democrats told me they were worried, too, about the accumulation of stories — “at some point the weight just pulls everything down,” one told me. Then again, James Carville, who has spent decades fending off the kind of Clinton stories that popped up last week, thinks the recent stories fit into an old pattern of shoot-and-miss. “All of this is spaghetti journalism; throw some spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks,” he insists. “It’s always something that ends up with nothing.”

Hillary Clinton’s enemies, and more than a few of her friends, believe the story will resonate — if only because she has always been at the center of most of the family’s major financial decisions.

 

Betrayal of the Public Trust: The Vince Foster Death Investigation Cover-Up

 

 

 

 

“Bill never gave a damn about money,” says Carl Bernstein, who penned a 2007 Hillary Clinton biography.

“From the start of her marriage … [Hillary] was the one worried about the money — they were not exactly living high on the hog in Arkansas. But there’s an apparent sense of entitlement there, too. They feel they have devoted their lives to public service, and they feel they had a right to [make money]. You saw it in Arkansas, but you also saw it when Chelsea was given $600,000 by NBC to be a reporter when she had absolutely no experience.”

Bernstein says he has never sought to psychoanalyze Clinton, but it’s hard not to read the first few chapters of his book, “A Woman in Charge,” without being struck by the value placed on saving money by her imperious, penny-pinching father, Hugh Rodham, who ran a small business in Chicago. One of the few times Hugh let his wife and daughter go on a shopping spree at a New York department store, he showed up 25 minutes before closing time to limit the damage — so Dorothy and Hillary Rodham took off their shoes to run through the store, collecting items as fast as they could.

During her husband’s years in government service, it was Hillary Clinton who paid most of the bills — initially as a partner in Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm — so many of the least flattering stories about the family’s finances featured her as the central player. Investigation after investigation proved the Clintons did nothing illegal in Whitewater, the complicated and doomed 1980s land deal that caused the first family so many pre-Monica Lewinsky headaches. But it was a sloppy affair, the result of Hillary Rodham’s push to supplement her husband’s meager government salary with a clever investment. The same held true for a questionable (and legal) $1,000 investment in cattle futures that yielded a 100-fold return.

Clinton invited ridicule last year when she said she and her husband were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House despite the fact that she had received an $8 million advance to write her first memoir, “Living History,” a month before her husband’s presidency ended. But that was, perhaps, the “realest Hillary,” expressing her persistent anxieties about money, however misplaced. And in fact, when Bill Clinton left the presidency, in debt to his lawyers after the Lewinsky impeachment and trial and all the sundry other investigations of his White House tenure, the couple found it so hard to get a loan for their new mansion in Chappaqua, New York, they had to prevail on buddy Terry McAuliffe for a bridge loan — prompting another bevy of negative headlines. Then there was the $190,000 in sundry household items the Clintons took from the White House in 2001 — $114,000 of which they later returned or reimbursed the government for.The slow-motion rollout of Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book “Clinton Cash,” from which some of the recent Clinton stories emanated, is excruciating for Clinton’s team, which has girded for its launch since March. It doesn’t prove a direct connection between Bill Clinton’s actions and his wife’s decisions as secretary of state, according to people who have reviewed the book. But it’s like an ever-present heckler — shouting down the campaign’s carefully planned Hillary-cares-about-all-of-us events.One top Clinton fundraiser, echoing sentiments inside the campaign, said he believes the “kill Hillary moment” will pass after Jeb Bush formally announces his candidacy — and the Republican candidates start savaging one another in debates. “We have to grit our teeth and get past this,” he said.

The Questions Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Want Answered About the Clinton Foundation

I don’t know what’s in Peter Schweizer’s book. But I know what the Clintons are capable of.

The Clintons

The Clintons

 

NATIONAL JOURNAL

April 22, 2015 Gennifer Flowers. Cattle futures. The White House travel office. Rose Law Firm files. The Lincoln Bedroom. Monica Lewinsky. And now, the Clinton Foundation. What ties these stories together is the predictable, paint-by-numbers response from the Bill and Hillary Clinton political operation.

1. Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built.

2. Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media.

3. Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts.

(RELATED: What Happens When the Training Wheels Come Off Hillary Clinton’s Campaign?)

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is both an admirable charity and a shadow political operation awash in conflicts of interest—a reflection of the power couple who founded it. Bill and Hillary Clinton, like history’s most enduring characters, seem to stride through public life with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other.

The seedy side of the foundation is a legitimate campaign issue. While the Clintons deserve credit for making foundation donations largely transparent, other activities raise serious questions. They violated an ethics agreement with the Obama White House. Hillary Clinton deleted most emails she sent and received as secretary of State, including any concerning the foundation or its donors.

What did donors expect from the Clintons? Did they receive favors in return? Why did the Clintons do business with countries that finance terrorism and suppress the rights of women? Did family and friends benefit from their ties to the foundation? And, in a broader sense, what do the operations of the foundation say about Hillary Clinton’s management ability and ethical grounding?

These questions are reportedly explored by conservative author Peter Schweizer in a soon-to-be-published book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. I say “reportedly” because I haven’t read the book; I have no idea whether Schweizer reveals any wrongdoing or relevant information. Scheduled for publication May 5, its contents are unknown.

(RELATED: Explaining Hillary Clinton’s Trip to the Health Policy Twilight Zone)

That hasn’t stopped the Clintons from denying, deflecting, and demeaning.

“[I’ll be] subjected to all kinds of distractions and attacks, and I’m ready for that,” Hillary Clinton said when asked about the book while campaigning for the presidency in New Hampshire. “I know that comes, unfortunately, with the territory.”

Clever how she casts herself as the victim of a book she hasn’t read and of questions she has yet to answer. The Clinton campaign circulated a memo to its supporters Tuesday night with talking points on the book. According to Politico:

In the memo, [Brian] Fallon links to a series of critical reports on Schweizer and the book, including one ThinkProgress post noting that one of Schweizer’s sources is a TD Bank press release that was revealed to be fake in 2013. Fallon also details how Schweizer has spoken with Republicans—but apparently not Democrats—about the findings prior to the publication date.

The memo quotes a report by Media Matters For America, the liberal watchdog founded by Clinton ally David Brock, that says Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute has “close ties to a billionaire family funding Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential run. GAI has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch,” the libertarian billionaire brothers.

Liberal groups like Media Matters and Correct The Record—a subsidiary of American Bridge, also founded by Brock—have served as a rapid response unit against the book, digging into the author’s record and the book’s alleged findings.

The issue isn’t Hillary Clinton and her ethical shortcuts, Fallon intimates, it’s Schweizer. The memo doesn’t point to Clinton’s detailed defense of the foundation’s fundraising process, because she has never given one. It doesn’t explain why it’s proper for a sitting secretary of State and presidential hopeful to accept foreign donations, because she has never offered an explanation. It doesn’t detail the profits secured by her brother and other intimates via the foundation, because Clinton has never owned up to them. It doesn’t justify the huge personal and administration expenses charged to the charity, because Clinton has offered none.

(RELATED: Cracking Hillary Clinton’s Energy Code)

Finally, the memo doesn’t say whether Clinton’s deleted emails involved favors for foundation donors, because—well, we may never know.

“The book relies on distortions of widely available data that the Clinton Foundation already makes public on its own,” Fallon writes. “The author attempts to repackage and twist these previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories.”

Who is repackaging and twisting facts into absurd conspiracy theories? I can’t say that about Schweitzer; I haven’t read his book. But I do know what the Clintons are capable of.

Clinton’s megabucks tied to foreign donors – BOOK

11173355_10155751724195206_2176587403673151948_n

How foreign cash made Bill and Hillary ‘filthy rich’

Hillary Rodham Clinton used her clout as secretary of state to do favors for foreign donors who gave millions to her family foundation — and who paid millions more to her husband, Bill, in speaking fees, a new book charges.

Records show that of the $105 million the former president raked in from speeches over 12 years, about half came during his wife’s four-year tenure at the State Department.

The claims in “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” come just a week after she launched her presidential campaign.

They raise questions about shady foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation — and what actions Hillary took in her official capacity in exchange for the cash.

“During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions,” writes author Peter Schweizer, according to The New York Times, which first reported the story.

“Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

Schweizer — a former speech-writing consultant for President George W. Bush — said he found a clear “pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable US policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds.”

Modal Trigger One example of an alleged quid pro quo cited by the Times and other sources involved the State Department’s backing of a free-trade agreement with Colombia that benefited a company founded by a big donor to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary opposed the trade deal when running for president in 2008 because of the South American country’s poor record on workers’ rights.

But then the company, Canadian-based Pacific Rubiales, and its founder, Clinton Foundation board member Frank Giustra, donated “millions” to the foundation, The International Business Times reported.

In 2010, the State Department under Hillary lauded Colombia’s human rights record, allowing Giustra’s company to reap huge profits.

The book also examines lucrative development contracts awarded to foundation donors following the devastating Haitian earthquake in 2010. And it reports that Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a small North Carolina mining company that in 2012 got one of only two coveted “gold exploitation permits” from the government of Haiti — the first issued in more than 50 years, according to the website Breitbart.

Bill Clinton himself was paid $1 million by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline as the State Department was considering the project, Schweizer charges.

Records show that Bill’s earnings from appearance fees — both foreign and domestic — spiked at $17 million in 2012, Hillary’s last year at State.

During Hillary’s four-year stint as secretary of state, the ex-president earned about $48 million of a $105 million speaking haul amassed between 2001 and 2013.

More than half of the $48 million was paid by companies in China, Japan, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Cayman Islands, among others.

The author writes that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

Bill Clinton is believed to be the richest living ex-president and one of the 10 wealthiest ever.

Most estimates put the power couple’s combined net worth at $100 million to $200 million.

Some of the fees were paid at the Clintons’ request to their foundation — netting domestic donors a fat tax break. But most went directly to Bill, and the fees make up the family’s main source of income, The Washington Post reported.

Following Hillary’s decision to run for president, the foundation itself announced last week it would accept donations only from Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany and Norway.

The 186-page book will go on sale May 5, but Hillary wasted no time dismissing it.

“We’re back into the political season and, therefore, we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks and I’m ready for that. I know that that comes, unfortunately, with the territory,” she said Monday in Keene, NH.

“It is, I think, worth noting that the Republicans seem to only be talking about me. I don’t know what they’d talk about if I wasn’t in the race, but I am in the race and hopefully we’ll get on to the issues,” she added.

Allison Moore, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, responded by bringing up Hillary’s use of a private email account for official business and her deletion of thousands of emails.

The Ascent of Hillary Clinton, the $.2.5 Billion “People’s” Candidate

By Glen Ford
Global Research, April 19, 2015
Black Agenda Report

Region: USA

 

Hillary-Clinton-close-up-400x363“It is the triumph of filthy rich campaign contributors.”

Hillary Clinton just announced that she’s running for president. However, this commentary is not really about her. It’s about a nation of more than 300 million people in which politics has become the sole property and domain of the rich. The rich decided some time ago that Hillary Clinton would be the virtually unchallenged presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. The 48 percent of Americans that express an affinity with the Democratic Party have not yet chosen Clinton. There has been no primary election in any state. But, that does not matter because the selection process that counts occurs in the boardrooms and mansions and private clubs and getaways of the rich. Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill, have spent virtually their entire adult lives on the millionaires’ campaign circuit, the rich man’s primary. In the process of pleasing the rich, they have become rich, themselves.

Hillary hopes to spend two and a half billion dollars of – mostly – rich people’s money in the 2016 campaign. Wealthy people will be just as generous with the Republican candidate. The outcome on Election Day is absolutely certain: the rich man’s candidate will definitely win, and the people will lose – because they have no candidate in the major parties.

The people are not even in the game; the contest is over before the Democratic Party’s formal selection process even begins. And, when primary season does arrive, it will only be a formality. The menu has already been printed, and Hillary will be the main course for Democrats next year.

Democratic voters can say “Yes” to Hillary, but they can’t say “No,” because the party machinery and the rich men who pay for that machinery will crucify and expel any Democrat who seriously challenges her from the Left.

The Party has always been a scam.

The Democratic Party’s apologists like to call it a big tent with room for Blacks and browns and gays and labor and peace-loving people. But it’s actually a huge trap designed to contain and politically neutralize the folks who might otherwise turn against the rich. The Party has always been a scam, but at least in the old days it put on a populist show to fool the rank and file into believing that they could actually influence the party’s direction. However, Wall Street is determined that there will be no serious Democratic deviation from the corporate agenda set by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton would represent the third Clinton presidency – which, for Wall Street, is just as good as the two George Bush presidencies. Maybe better, because labor and Blacks and that fuzzy cohort called liberals will all think they won the election, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Rank and file Democrats will see the fait accompli of Hillary’s nomination as a sign of unity among Democrats, when in fact it is the triumph of filthy rich campaign contributors. The rich have shown great solidarity in uniting behind a Democratic presidential candidate. Later on, they will unite around a Republican candidate, too. After that, it won’t matter who wins.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

 

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

RENEW AMERICA: Proof Hillary isn’t fit to be president

150220_POL_Hillary.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge

Renew America?

 

 

Larry Klayman

No one understands better than yours truly – except perhaps Vince Foster and scores of others (including material witnesses) who mysteriously died in and around the Clinton administration during the 1990s – the treachery of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Indeed, I fought her and her husband tooth and nail during these years and am the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a sitting president committed a crime – a finding made by now Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in the famous Filegate case, which involved Bill and Hillary Clinton illegally obtaining FBI files on perceived adversaries to intimidate witnesses and blunt the 40-plus scandals that the Clintons found themselves engulfed in during those years.

My efforts to hold the Clintons to the rule of law infuriated them so much that President Clinton, at one point during his impeachment, lost his composure and control. After I also challenged the Clintons’ illegal mortgage and purchase of a home in Chappaqua, N.Y., they attacked me personally at a White House press conference. (See the video on the homepage of Freedomwatchusa.org.) Many wondered at the time how I was able to survive the Clintons’ wrath.

It became well-known during the Clinton years that while the president was a “certified” sleaze ball, the most evil partner of this Bonnie-and-Clyde duo was Hillary. She came to be seen as the “consigliore” of the couple, the one who had executed (pun intended) their dastardly plans and deeds. In this regard, although the moribund Republican establishment is conveniently willing to forget and forgive (since, after all, the Clintons are part of their elitist club in Washington, D.C.) – Republicans having failed miserably to convict Bill Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors during the impeachment proceedings during the late 1990s – it’s important to remind the nation and the world about who Hillary really is, particularly since she obviously is leaving her post in the Obama administration as secretary of state to likely prepare for a run at the presidency in 2016.

Here is just a partial list of “Her Evilness'” crimes that came to light during the Clinton administration years:

1) Whitewater scandal – This was the fraudulent land scheme, masterminded by Hillary and key witness Jim McDougal (who also mysteriously died in prison), while Hillary was a partner of the Rose Law Firm – also the firm of Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell, who later moved to D.C. with the Clintons to infest the White House Counsel’s office with their “legal expertise.” Hubbell was later indicted, tried and convicted for tax fraud. Foster turned up dead in Fort Marcy Park, as he was a material witness for then independent counsel Ken Starr’s Whitewater criminal investigation.

2) Travelgate – To feather the nest of her friends, Harry and Susan Thomases, both Hollywood “beautiful people,” Hillary had the head of the White House Travel Office, Billy Dale, fired on trumped-up claims of tax irregularities and then put the Thomases in charge to personally reap the profits of this government travel business. Dale, who was my client, was ultimately cleared, but not after his life was virtually ruined.

3) Filegate – This patented Hillary scandal was first detected by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which had been investigating the Clintons’ Travelgate caper. What was learned is that more than 900 FBI files had been ordered up by a former bar bouncer, Craig Livingstone, whom Hillary had hired to work in the White House Counsel’s Office, on the first lady’s orders and without proper legal justification. I later filed a class-action suit against the Clintons and other accomplices. The case went on for almost a decade and resulted in the uncovering of yet another Clinton scandal, E-mailgate – where the Clintons had covered up and suppressed more than a million potentially incriminating emails that should have been produced to me, Ken Starr and Congress over a variety of the duo’s crimes. It was also during this Filegate case that it was learned that President Clinton, on the advice of his top political adviser, James Carville, had illegally released Privacy Act protected information from White House files to smear Kathleen Willey, a woman who was a material witness in the impeachment proceedings, as she was also sexually harassed by the “philanderer in chief” while working for him in the White House. This was the basis of Judge Lamberth’s ruling that President Clinton had committed a crime.

4) Chinagate – Not to be outdone by her prior scandals, Hillary then masterminded a scheme whereby the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign of 1996 took bribes from communist Chinese banks and their government to bankroll the president’s and the Democratic Party’s re-election efforts when it appeared, due to their low standing in the polls, that all the stops needed to be pulled out. It was the lawsuit that I brought against Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, where at Hillary’s instruction, he literally sold seats on Department trade missions to China and elsewhere, which principally uncovered this. In late 1996 and early 1997, the scandal had burgeoned to such a level that joint congressional hearings were empaneled, ultimately to be shut down when Democrats uncovered illegal fundraising by some Republicans. The two parties, faced with mutual assured destruction, simply took an exit stage left. However, I soldiered on with my lawsuit. And, while I uncovered a lot about Bonnie and Clyde and their Chinese “friends,” this scandal ultimately took back seat to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, since the media preferred sex to foreign espionage and graft. Hillary and Bill were ironically saved by Monica, who became the lightening rod drawing attention away to what at the time was perhaps the biggest scandal – Chinagate – in American history.

[D]uring the congressional hearings concerning the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally testified about her role in the breakdown of security at the consulate, which resulted in the deaths of our ambassador and three others. At several points during even the mild questioning about why she had not as secretary of state taken steps to beef up security despite warnings before the terrorist attack, Hillary lost control and bore her vicious fangs.

 Hillary Clinton’s Fiery Moment at Benghazi Hearing

 

 

To me, and I hope the nation and the world, this shows again why she is not fit to be president. If she has a place to fill, the more fitting venue would be a prison cell, lest we not remember who she really is.

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. During his tenure at Judicial Watch, he obtained a court ruling that Bill Clinton committed a crime, the first lawyer ever to have done so against an American president. Larry became so famous for fighting corruption in the government and the legal profession that the NBC hit drama series West Wing created a character after him: Harry Klaypool of Freedom Watch. His character was played by actor John Diehl.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.