Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 59. (Read 234761 times)

Donna Shalala, President of Clinton Foundation, Has Stroke


Donna Shalala, the former president of the University of Miami who was brought in to lead the Clinton Foundation this year, had a stroke shortly after the closing ceremonies of the organization’s major fall event early Tuesday evening, officials said.

Ms. Shalala, 74, fell ill after departing the closing events around the Clinton Global Initiative, which was held at the Sheraton New York hotel on Seventh Avenue in Manhattan, according to a statement from foundation officials.

An email from former President Bill Clinton and his daughter, Chelsea, who is the vice chairwoman of the foundation and a major force in running the organization, was sent to the staff late in evening.

“As some of you may have heard, Donna suffered a stroke this evening after CGI,” the email read. “Fortunately, she was with colleagues at the time and taken to the hospital for treatment. Initial reports are very encouraging.” They added, “We will continue to share updates as we know more. Please join Hillary, Chelsea and me in keeping Donna in your thoughts and prayers.”

Mr. Clinton visited Ms. Shalala Tuesday evening, according to a person briefed on their discussion, and they had what the person called “a good conversation” after surgery. She was said to be alert and making jokes with him, which he found relieving.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/donna-shalala-president-of-clinton-foundation-has-stroke.html?_r=0

Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law





Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)

On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.

She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.

Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).

Two examples demonstrate this point.

When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.

Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.

Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.
Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.

The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.

Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.


http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

NBC Files Copyright Claims Against All Videos Of Hillary Clinton On ‘Meet The Press’




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1OymVU9LME


#vast right wing conspiracy

I dont trust any clintons or bushs

Hillary Supporters All Have A Suspiciously Identical Feelings About Her ‘Meet The Press’ Interview


In a massive coincidence, every single Hillary Clinton staffer and surrogate who watched the Democratic presidential candidate’s Meet the Press interview had the exact same thoughts, sometimes using identical language.

Now at first, it may appear that these responses were all coordinated in some fashion. However, it would be against the law for campaign officials to coordinate with a pro-Clinton Super PAC director like Brad Woodhouse. So clearly it’s a coincidence that his tweet was identical to Clinton staffer Karen Finney’s.




http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-supporters-all-have-suspiciously-identical-feelings-about-meet-the-press-interview/

Aw be nice.  We may have found the LAST Hillary Supporter.

The world does not care about the US. The "world" cares about its own self interests but wants to look smart, wearing cheap suits made in Bangladesh by little children...

No politician is absolutely trustworthy, no doubt about that. However, if it comes to choosing one of them to become president you should  keep in mind that that person will be regarded as the face of your country by the outside world. I like to go around in my flat wearing just underpants because they are convenient and "trustworthy", but when I go outside I wear a suit.

Obama, Zuckerberg Back Out Of Scandal-Plagued Clinton Global Initiative Gala…


While many donors and political figures will attend the annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) gala tonight, many prominent figures, like President Obama, Arianna Huffington, Elton John and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have reportedly passed up the event in favor of other activities.

The $2 billion affair in New York City titled “The Future of Impact” was intended to attract a star-studded guest list and celebrate the accomplishments of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. But instead the event appears to be representative of the respect the Clintons have lost this past year, as Hillary faces questioning about her private email server and the former president may have to step down from his role with CGI.

Obama, who has attended every CGI gala in the past, will skip for the first time this year, citing scheduling conflicts. Obama has yet to endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary, and while he had history working with Clinton while she was his secretary of state, the two-term Vice President Joe Biden may jump into the race soon.

Additionally Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen and French economist Thomas Piketty were both asked to deliver presentations on income inequality, but both declined, according to a Politico report. Hillary Clinton may lead a panel on economic opportunity for women, but since she has distanced herself from CGI’s efforts since launching her campaign, her role will be otherwise minimal.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-zuckerberg-back-out-of-scandal-plagued-foundation-gala/article/2572884?custom_click=rss

Is the IRS in Collusion with the Clinton Foundation?
Charles Ortel’s quest to expose Clinton Foundation fraud has a Lois Lerner connection



Does anyone remember Henry Markopolos? In case you don’t, he was the former securities industry executive who for nine years persistently, but unsuccessfully, tried to convince the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the respected securities investment firm headed by Bernie Madoff was engaged in massive long-term fraud.

Fast forward to 2009 when Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for operating the largest private Ponzi scheme in history adding up to billions of dollars in client losses.

In 2010, Markopolos wrote about his dramatic whistle-blower experience in a book aptly titled,  “No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller.”

So why am I bringing up the heroic efforts of Harry Markopolos?

The answer is a whistle-blower in the mold of Markopolos has come to my attention and his name is Charles Ortel. Like Markopolos, Ortel has a background as a financial industry executive in addition to a successful track record of identifying economic trends and systemic problems within companies, most notably General Electric.

Throughout 2015, Ortel has carefully studied and documented a decade’s worth of domestic and global fraud, theft, corruption and violations of strict IRS rules being perpetrated by a prestigious multi-billion dollar charitable organization known as the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Unlike Markopolos, who went to the SEC and was largely ignored because of incompetence, Ortel believes that the IRS is actively in collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

Collusion with the high-profile charity explains why the IRS is not thoroughly investigating Ortel’s carefully documented allegations of illegal activity on a scale so grand that a major audit would certainly be triggered if the name of the foundation was not “Clinton.”

Only collusion explains why, for over a decade, the IRS has allowed the Clinton Foundation, and all its umbrella organizations with different names to operate outside the strict rules and regulations under which all tax-exempt charities must operate or risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Ortel calculates that 2004 was the year when the foundation began engaging in massive fraud. Now guess who was director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Rulings & Agreements Division at that time? And guess who in December of 2005 was promoted to director of the entire IRS Exempt Organizations Division? Does the name Lois Lerner ring a bell?

The now disgraced Ms. Lerner resigned and retired from the IRS in September of 2013. In May of 2014 she refused to testify before a congressional committee. She then invoked the 5th Amendment,  and was found in contempt of Congress. Lerner became the name most associated with what is still an ongoing IRS investigation as to why and how her department consistently denied tax-exempt status to conservative groups.

Ortel told RedState that he believes Lerner, a known partisan Democrat, “looked the other way at the IRS, thus allowing the Clinton Foundation’s cancer to spread.”

But even with Lerner long gone, Ortel says “Clinton acolytes are spread throughout the IRS.” Certainly those allegations help answer the question I posed two weeks ago on National Review: “Where are the Clinton Foundation’s Revised IRS 990 Forms?”

Fortunately my piece caught Ortel’s eye and now, after many discussions, I realize that asking why the IRS has yet to crack down on the Clinton Foundation for their delayed 2014 Form 990 along with years of promised revised filings, barely scratches the surface.

With the IRS ignoring Ortel, he is seeking nationally known investigative journalists to help him gain some traction in the mainstream media for his politically charged allegations in hopes that the Clinton Foundation IRS corruption scandal will “go viral.”

One such report details how $17 million disappeared between the “old” Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) at the end of 2009 and the “new” CHAI beginning in 2010 while Hillary Clinton was finishing her first year as secretary of state.

Half-joking, I asked Ortel if he had bodyguards. He did not laugh, but instead said, “That is why I am actively reaching out to investigative journalists.”

Read for yourself what Ortel has uncovered and documented in his new 26-page second interim report titled, “FALSE PHILANTHROPY”.



Charles Ortel is a man on a mission who keeps digging deeper into the bowels of the Clinton Foundation and their tangled web of at least 75 different companies and organizations with tentacles in numerous states and nations. For example, in Florida alone there are four links under the name of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation on the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations web site.

Meanwhile, on September 26 – 29, the 11th annual meeting  of the Clinton Global Initiative will be held in New York City. Corporate titans such as Bill Gates and George Soros are mentioned in the press release as attendees, along with hordes of A-listers and several heads of state.

The theme of the star-studded gathering is “The Future of Impact.” However, the always impactful Hillary Clinton will be conspicuously absent, while Charles Ortel is hopeful that his “future impact” will be forthcoming.

Finally, the National Journal’s Ron Fournier added some fuel to Ortel’s fire. In a piece demanding that Hillary Clinton either “come clean or get out,” Fournier hearkens back to that famous phrase, “follow the money” attributed to “Deep Throat” in the Watergate scandal when he writes that a Clinton loyalist said to him, “The emails are a related but secondary scandal. Follow the foundation money.”

Surely many people want to do that, except the IRS.


http://www.redstate.com/diary/6755mm/2015/09/25/myra-adams-clinton-foundation-collusion-irs/

"It’s totally ridiculous. It never crossed my mind."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=34&v=pcN1NdRMsgc

... Or Rachel Dolezal?

I've heard the same thing, except with Elizabeth Warren as his VP. Well, maybe that works. If Elizabeth Warren can be Native American, then I guess she can be African American as well. Fauxcahoantas Fauxbama.

Carson: White House wanted me to apologize for 'offending' Obama

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/15/carson-wh-says-his-prayer-breakfast-speech-offended-obama-asked-for-apology/

Well, The Donald could do worse than pick this guy as VP if it gets that far.

Definitely presidential material. And funny guy, "they should have said something" hahahahahaha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTdtL-hirRg

[...]
Obama and Clinton were both at Reagan National Airport on their way to Iowa for a [2007] debate, and the candidates met on the tarmac for what became a brief but heated conversation. Then-Obama personal aide Reggie Love witnessed the event and describes it in his new memoir:

[Obama] very respectfully told her the apology was kind, but largely meaningless, given the emails it was rumored her camp had been sending out labeling him as a Muslim. Before he could finish his sentence, she exploded on Obama. In a matter of seconds, she went from composed to furious. It had not been Obama’s intention to upset her, but he wasn’t going to play the fool either.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/

---------------------------------
Pure hatred.

BOMBSHELL: ‘WASHINGTON POST’ CONFIRMS HILLARY CLINTON STARTED THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT





New analysis from the Washington Post removes any doubt that the anti-Obama Birther movement was started in 2007 and 2008 by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her Democrat supporters.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this month, other left-wing media outlets, like Politico and the Guardian, had  already traced the Birther movement back to Democrats and Ms. Clinton. Using his wayback machine on Wednesday, the Post’s David Weigel took an in-depth look at the origins of the false rumors that President Obama is a practicing Muslim who was not born in a America. Weigel’s reporting contains the final pieces of a very disturbing puzzle.

What Weigel found and re-reported was astounding, details many of us had forgotten or never heard of, including a 2007 bombshell memo from the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist.

What the left-wing Weigel left out of his reporting was even more astounding, including a documented confrontation between Clinton and Obama over the Birther issue, and video of Hillary herself stoking doubt about Obama’s Christian faith.

Because the Washington Post’s primary job  is to protect Democrats, Weigel’s headline and conclusion are an objective lie. Despite the fact that what he uncovered (and chose to not cover) points directly to Ms. Clinton and her campaign, Weigel concludes she had nothing to do with the Birther movement.

Naturally, Weigel’s own facts support the exact opposite conclusion.

His research, however, is all that matters.

 

Defcon 4: Mark Penn’s March 2007 Strategy Memo

Everything began in March of 2007 when Hillary’s chief strategist Mark Penn wrote a now-infamous campaign memo laying out his overall plan to win the election.

Weigel sums up the Birther elements of Penn’s memo as a nothingburger; indeed, according to Weigel, the memo actually proves that the Clinton campaign wanted nothing to do with Birtherism: “But Penn wrote that as a warning, not a strategy,” Weigel writes.

While most of Weigel’s lies in his defense of Clinton are of omission and deflection, the wrist-flicking of Penn’s memo is pure audacity.

Because this is important, I’m not asking anyone to believe my interpretation of the memo. You can read the memo for yourself here. Below are two mainstream media sources. [emphasis added] As you’ll see, the idea that the memo was a warning against “othering” Obama is preposterous:

The Atlantic:

[Penn] wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”

Bloomberg

The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. … Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it. … Penn wrote: … “[H]is roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”

Bloomberg adds: “Penn was not a birther.”

His memo didn’t raise the issue of Obama’s citizenship. Furthermore, he was acutely aware of the political danger that a Democrat would court by going after Obama in this way, even subliminally: “We are never going to say anything about his background,” he wrote.

That is what the memo said. The truth, though, is that the attacks on Obama’s background would come the following year, and those attacks would not only come from Hillary’s supporters but directly from her own campaign and her own mouth during a nationally televised “60 Minutes” interview.

In March of 2007, the campaign could afford to attack Obama’s otherness “subliminally.”

By the following year, as the primary losses mounted, the gloves came completely off.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/


---------------------------------
Now. Do you understand why the 0bamas and the clintons' are pure enemies?

The whole article is amazing.

She is simply not a good candidate. She is a menace to 0bama. The clintons and the 0bamas hate each other. I've read 0bama wants biden to run and have a black VP. He wants biden to do 4 years. That's it. Then the black VP will be seen as 0bama 2.0.

Almost the same trick putin pulled with dmitry medvedev...

But then Trump happened... Bernie happened.

Didn´t The New York Times first break that email story? And isn´t that one big boiler room for the Clintons?

Maybe the play was supposed to be about making some kind of underdog out of her. You know, sympathy and all that. Only she´s too much of a lowlife to even fit that bill so it quickly backfired.