Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 83. (Read 234741 times)

Alright folks, Rand Paul was right all along!
----
FOX News reported Monday that the US was sending guns to Banias and Borj Islam, Syria before the Benghazi terrorist attack.

US Intelligence agencies were fully aware that weapons were moving from the terrorist stronghold in Libya to Syria before the attack that killed four Americans…
September 16, 2012 DIA Memo copied to the National Security Council, CIA, and others concluded the Benghazi terrorist attack was planned at least ten or more days in advance…

The memo also tied the attack to 9-11… No discussion of a demonstration or anti-Mohammad video.

US officials were aware that weapons were being shipped to Syria by the Port of Benghazi.


The US was in fact running guns from Benghazi to Syria when the annex and consulate were attacked.

Senator Rand Paul questioned Hillary Clinton about this gun running program back in January 2013 during her testimony on the Benghazi terrorist attack.


Hillary Clinton said she did not know about the program while testifying under oath.
Here is the transcript:
Rand Paul accused the Obama administration in January 2013 of running guns to Syrian rebels.
Rand Paul was right.

Pics, video and more...http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/breaking-rand-paul-was-right-obama-admin-was-running-guns-to-syria-hillary-lied-under-oath/

Nothing new here. The Clintons took in 30 million last year from speeches alone:

http://news.sky.com/story/1485366/clintons-earn-30m-obamas-have-1000-in-bank

Most of them will be essentially bribes.

It should be obvious to everyone right now how scummy the Clintons are by using poor people in third world countries as cover to reel in major cash donations and then pocket most of the loot. There's no way you can love your enemy with the likes of these creeps.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one; Hillary took money from more companies seeking influence






So a politician, a lobbyist and a journalist walk into a bar…

Legal Insurrection popped up with another tidbit from the recent document dump of campaign finance reports which came out on Friday. This one caught my attention because it involved not only Hillary Clinton, but a company located fairly close to me… Corning, a major manufacturer of glass and ceramics located in upstate New York. The company has a keen interest in foreign trade deals and stays involved in lobbying efforts to expand them

But they also keep a close eye on politicians who may be involved in such decisions, or so it seems. During Clinton’s tenure at the State Department they lobbied the agency heavily regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In what I’m sure is a totally unrelated coincidence, they also donated somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Nothing all that unusual there, at least compared to what we’ve seen from other companies and governments. (And, er… journalists at ABC.) But last year it went a step further. Jonathan Allen (yes, I know it’s Vox, but…) points out the key factor.


[L]ast July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.


This isn’t the biggest speaking fee that Hillary Clinton ever received, nor will it be the last one we hear about in this context, I’m sure. But it’s notable that such an active lobbying entity who had specifically been pushing the State Department on a critical trade issue currently under debate was laying out those sorts of donations to the foundation. When you add in that nearly quarter million dollar speaking fee which went directly into Hillary Clinton’s purse – as opposed to curing AIDS or whatever – the the smoke is getting pretty thick on the ground, even if you haven’t seen the actual fire yet.

As Legal Insurrection asks:

With the added evidence of speaking fees as another form of Clinton payola, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have some questions to answer. Among them: what did these companies expect in return for the out-sized “speaking fees” and did they have cause to believe that their “investment” would pay off in some real way in a Clinton administration?

At this point, since there likely never will be any “smoking gun” found, it’s not a question of what did you know and when did you know it. It’s more a case of, who did you get paid by and what did they expect?


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/17/stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one-hillary-took-money-from-more-companies-seeking-influence/

Hillary was mad at bill regarding Monica because he was caught. Not because of the cheating. The images was a reply to someone thinking bill was a cool dude, a cool professional womanizer...

To answer the initial question: no.  I refuse to vote for her simply based on my belief that concentrating power in just a few families is bad.  Same goes for bush.

As to the pics, awesome post but why do people care so much?  Who knows what sort of marriage they have?  Perhaps hillary has a cuckquean fetish!

One of those are professional politician crooks who smell like a bad case of athletes foot. The other one helped the logistic of the olympic games and their athletes. One was accused of not paying his taxes. Every penny one made has been traced by a not so friendly irs. The other father-mother-daughter flesh eating bacteria sandwich forgot to declare millions of donation from foreigners to a very forgiven irs. The family nuked a whole secretary of state server, etc, etc...

Sorry. Not the same type of $$$


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/06/mitt-romney/how-important-was-romney-fixing-troubled-salt-lake/

Clinton's are pulling in MITT ROMNEY amounts of money.

It's widely known the Clintons have done well for themselves in recent years, but until now, it wasn't clear just how well. Today, the campaign filed a financial disclosure report revealing they earned $30 million in just the last seventeen months.

The report is not yet posted on the Federal Elections Commission website, but the campaign voluntarily released it to reporters. It covers the period from January 2014 to present.
In that time the former president and former secretary of state earned just over $25 million from about 100 paid speeches. That works out to about $250,000 per speech. Not bad work, if you can get it, which they can.

Another $5 million came from Simon and Schuster, the publisher of Hillary Clinton's book Hard Choices.

This income puts them in the upper echelons of the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States. An income of $430,000 puts you in the top 1 percent.

More...http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/15/407117996/clintons-earned-30-million-from-paid-speeches-and-book-sales

Slick Willy. Play on playa.

Damn, Wilikon wins longest post ever award, pics galore. Bill is definitely the breed that one doesn't want their daughter to meet in a back alley alone.

Bill is a pimp. I don kno why he's still married to that old hag

ABC news said all is fine. Move along!

Will George Stephanopoulos be driven out over Clinton Foundation donations?

With word emerging today that ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos gave “$50,001 to $100,000” to the Clinton Foundation, the network will soon face the Brian Williams Quandary — is its top “newsman” trustworthy when delivering news.

Stephanopoulos only disclosed the donations to the nonprofit when asked about them by a reporter from the Free Beacon (choosing to control the story through a statement to friendly liberal outlet, Politico).

In dozens and dozens of stories and interviews on the Clintons, the chief anchor never mentioned his hefty gifts. In fact, he fiercely questioned author Peter Schweizer last month about his book “Clinton Cash,” making unilateral statements that the book was hogwash.

“As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that supported the interest of donors,” Stephanopoulos said. “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. And an independent government ethics expert at the Sunlight Foundation Bill Allison wrote this: ‘There’s no smoking gun. No evidence that the changed policy is based on donations to the foundation. No smoking gun.’ Is there a smoking gun?”

Read more: Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/14/next-brian-williams/#ixzz3aAXBxS8C
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

This all over the news here in the states and it just goes to show that this guy is a hatchetman for the Clintons for decades and lately he's been acting as a journalist on ABC. This fucker is a weasel of the worst kind and totally meshes quite well in the Clinton world. This also makes a mockery out of ABC as being a legitimate news service anymore.

Not to go off topic.  But did anyone watch the David Letterman interview with Bill Clinton?

I was surprised he came off kinda slow to me.  He seemed old which was surprising to me. I think of him and Hillary as "younger" then what he seemed.

I do give him credit for a few pretty good jokes.

Hillary's Super PAC to openly violate FEC regulations by coordinating directly with campaign

Clinton's newest super PAC ally, Correct the Record, is spinning off from American Bridge, another super PAC that formed four years ago and that conducts opposition research on Republican presidential hopefuls. Correct the Record, which has been serving as a rapid-response team to defend Clinton since November 2013, is being recast as an independent super PAC that will continue to serve as “a political research and communications war room,” the group said Tuesday.

What’s unusual is that Correct the Record plans to coordinate with the Clinton campaign and potentially other federal campaigns and Democratic party committees – something that quickly drew skepticism from watchdogs who find it difficult to see how the group can function without running afoul of campaign finance laws. Those laws are designed to prevent committees that collect big-dollar contributions from having direct contact with campaigns.

more at link....also mentions Jeb's campaign doing something similar...http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-13/is-new-hillary-clinton-super-pac-pushing-legal-boundaries-

Judge reinstates lawsuit to force surrender of Hillary Clinton e-mails


Will Hillary Clinton’s reportedly deleted e-mails ever see the light of day? A federal court advanced the possibility last Friday, restoring a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch that had originally dismissed on the basis that the e-mails no longer existed. Judge Reggie Walton reinstated the 2012 lawsuit after the State Department joined in the request, citing the revelation that Hillary used a private server meant that the State Department could not have been fully responsive at the time:


A federal judge has reopened an open-records case trying to pry loose some of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails, marking the first time a court has taken action on the email scandal.

Judge Reggie B. Walton agreed Friday to a joint request by the State Department and Judicial Watch, which sued in 2012 to get a look at some of Mrs. Clinton’s documents concerning a public relations push.

Both sides agreed that the revelation that Mrs. Clinton had kept her own email server separate from the government, and exclusively used her own email account created on that server, meant that she had shielded her messages from valid open-records requests.

Now that she has belatedly turned some emails over, the government offered — and Judge Walton confirmed in his ruling — that the agency should search them all to see whether any should have been released to Judicial Watch.


The problem here, of course, is that Hillary Clinton claimed to destroy the records. She still has the server, which the House Select Committee on Benghazi also wants in the hands of a third party for potential data recovery, most likely the State Department IG. If the Clintons are not forthcoming with the material, Walton could order the server seized.

That’s an important distinction. It’s clear that Walton isn’t only concerned with the e-mails handed over to State, or he would just have directed State to fulfill JW’s demand. If the Clintons claim again that the data no longer exists, Walton has the option of subpoenaing the physical server and taking it into his custody, a power that the Benghazi committee lacks.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/12/video-judge-reinstates-lawsuit-to-force-surrender-of-hillary-clinton-e-mails/

She doesn't think she has to.

She has the nomination.

Really the new politics I think is to take no positions, or as few as possible.

Having no record is far better than having something to attack.

We saw that with this president.  nothing to grab onto, so it was easy to sell hopey changey.

HILLARY CLINTON SETS RECORD, LONGEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TO DODGE NATIONAL PRESS IN MODERN HISTORY

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a dubious record: she’s gone longer than any presidential candidate in modern history without appearing on a national television news network or conducting a sit down interview with national media.

Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, announced she would run for president via a recorded two-minute video message on Twitter Sunday April 12th. Following the announcement, Clinton dashed off to Iowa in her “Scooby” van without giving any time to the national press, and very little time – if any – to local reporters.

Research tracing back through the 2012 and 2008 primaries suggests the longest a candidate went without doing an interview with national press after a presidential bid announcement was roughly two days.

Joe Biden, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Ron Paul, Rudy Guliani, John Edwards and Mike Huckabee all conducted interviews with the media on the same day as their presidential bid announcements.

More...http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/hillary-clinton-sets-record-longest-presidential-candidate-to-dodge-national-press-in-modern-history/

No politician can be and should be trusted, period. Their work is to consciously deceive people and promise what they cannot deliver. Though their words may indeed sound pleasing to one's ear..