OBAMA’S POWERFUL MESSAGE: DONALD TRUMP IS UN-AMERICAN
Obama’s Powerful Message: Donald Trump Is Un-American - The New Yorker?
Obama’s Powerful Message: Donald Trump Is Un-American - The New Yorker?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Hillary
- Thread starter flenser
- Start date
An ad suggesting the DNC was hiring actors to fill empty seats appeared on Craigslist, but was almost certainly a fake. DNC Hiring 'Actors' via Craigslist to Replace Delegates
On the Need for Official Attribution of Russia’s DNC Hack
On the Need for Official Attribution of Russia’s DNC Hack
Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff—Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, respectively—called on the Obama administration to consider declassifying and releasing any intelligence community assessments on the attribution and motives of the DNC hackers.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The intelligence community has powers and capabilities that far exceed that of the private sector for attribution, and do not suffer from the same conflicts of interest. Whereas private sector attribution tends to rely on technical forensics of the malware and infrastructure used by the hackers, the IC is able to draw upon a much more diverse set of capabilities—such as financial intelligence, human intelligence, and counter-intelligence—to bring together a wider set of facts with narrower bands of uncertainty than the private sector would normally have at its disposal.
Making a public statement on behalf of the United States that the intrusion is (or is not) directed by the Russian government would be a huge step in the right direction towards a formal response.
The DNC leaks, if they were caused by the Russian government, are a big deal regardless of one's political persuasion. If this hack and leak are really a Russian intelligence operation, they would be an intentional bulk leak of data by a state actor collaterally containing large quantities of private citizens’ personally identifiable information. It also matters if the purpose of the hack was to influence the election. It is thus important to distinguish the level of confidence concerning who’s behind the hack and the confidence we have in that actor's motive for doing so.
We need to proceed with care and precision in the response to this attack, not least because it will set the normative precedent for responses to attributed-but-denied collateral mass-leaks of private citizen data by foreign governments in the future. If future similar leaks are to be properly discouraged, we need to carefully consider whether the hackers are really the Russian government; if so, what part or parts of the DNC leak operation we fundamentally object to; and finally what domains and what scale of response is proportionate and appropriate to respond to the attack.
With that in mind, here are some of my thoughts on the initial DNC hack; why I was initially very sceptical of CrowdStrike’s attribution; why the mass-leak of documents makes a big difference; what are—in my view—the best public-domain facts suggesting the DNC hackers are, in fact, Russian intelligence; and finally, what’s new about this leak and what types of response might be available to the administration to dissuade similar attacks in future.
…
On the Need for Official Attribution of Russia’s DNC Hack
Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff—Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, respectively—called on the Obama administration to consider declassifying and releasing any intelligence community assessments on the attribution and motives of the DNC hackers.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The intelligence community has powers and capabilities that far exceed that of the private sector for attribution, and do not suffer from the same conflicts of interest. Whereas private sector attribution tends to rely on technical forensics of the malware and infrastructure used by the hackers, the IC is able to draw upon a much more diverse set of capabilities—such as financial intelligence, human intelligence, and counter-intelligence—to bring together a wider set of facts with narrower bands of uncertainty than the private sector would normally have at its disposal.
Making a public statement on behalf of the United States that the intrusion is (or is not) directed by the Russian government would be a huge step in the right direction towards a formal response.
The DNC leaks, if they were caused by the Russian government, are a big deal regardless of one's political persuasion. If this hack and leak are really a Russian intelligence operation, they would be an intentional bulk leak of data by a state actor collaterally containing large quantities of private citizens’ personally identifiable information. It also matters if the purpose of the hack was to influence the election. It is thus important to distinguish the level of confidence concerning who’s behind the hack and the confidence we have in that actor's motive for doing so.
We need to proceed with care and precision in the response to this attack, not least because it will set the normative precedent for responses to attributed-but-denied collateral mass-leaks of private citizen data by foreign governments in the future. If future similar leaks are to be properly discouraged, we need to carefully consider whether the hackers are really the Russian government; if so, what part or parts of the DNC leak operation we fundamentally object to; and finally what domains and what scale of response is proportionate and appropriate to respond to the attack.
With that in mind, here are some of my thoughts on the initial DNC hack; why I was initially very sceptical of CrowdStrike’s attribution; why the mass-leak of documents makes a big difference; what are—in my view—the best public-domain facts suggesting the DNC hackers are, in fact, Russian intelligence; and finally, what’s new about this leak and what types of response might be available to the administration to dissuade similar attacks in future.
…
Did The DNC Hire Actors (At Below Minimum Wage) To Work At The Convention?
Tyler Durden
Jul 28, 2016 1:20 PM
Great news... The Democrats are 'creating jobs."
Following the exposure of a fake Trump job advertisement designed by The DNC to embarrass Trump, it is interesting that a Craigslist ad calling for "Actors Needed for National Convention" has surfaced...
Whether the ad is real or fake is unclear, but the text suggests below minimum wage compensation (7-plus hours work for $50) and the number of walkouts from the Convention indicates perhaps a need for cheering happy seat-fillers...
Which makes sense if one looks at the following shocking video from film director, Josh Fox, best known for his Oscar-nominated anti-fracking documentary Gasland, captured inside the DNC...
As DailyWire.com reports, Fox tells the camera... "This is amazing, this place is empty. There is nobody left in here. I mean this whole stadium, look at this," as he pans his cellphone to show the lack of cheering Dems.
He continues in disbelief, adding, "This is not voter enthusiasm.... I can't believe my eyes. I've never seen anything like this. This is the primetime of the Democratic National Convention right after the nomination of Hillary Clinton and this place is emptied out like crazy. I'm stunned."
"This is insane. The whole California delegation is pretty much gone," he adds. "I mean this has got to be something very worrisome for the Democrats. Voter enthusiasm wins elections."
The director goes on to explain that the states that Hillary won got seating up close to the stage and the Bernie state delegates were sent up to the cheap seats.
Is it then totally surprising that The DNC needed to hire 'seat-fillers'?
* * *
And here is proof:
Tyler Durden
Jul 28, 2016 1:20 PM
Great news... The Democrats are 'creating jobs."
Following the exposure of a fake Trump job advertisement designed by The DNC to embarrass Trump, it is interesting that a Craigslist ad calling for "Actors Needed for National Convention" has surfaced...
Whether the ad is real or fake is unclear, but the text suggests below minimum wage compensation (7-plus hours work for $50) and the number of walkouts from the Convention indicates perhaps a need for cheering happy seat-fillers...
Actors Needed For National Convention (Philadelphia)
compensation: $50.00
Looking for 700 people to be utilized as actors during the National Convention.
We currently have a number of empty seats that will need to be filled as we are currently removing a number of people and need to refill their seats for the remainder of the conference.
You will be paid $50.00 each night for the remainder of the convention. You will be required to cheer at all times and will be asked to dress properly and possibly wear some promotional material.
compensation: $50.00
Looking for 700 people to be utilized as actors during the National Convention.
We currently have a number of empty seats that will need to be filled as we are currently removing a number of people and need to refill their seats for the remainder of the conference.
You will be paid $50.00 each night for the remainder of the convention. You will be required to cheer at all times and will be asked to dress properly and possibly wear some promotional material.
Which makes sense if one looks at the following shocking video from film director, Josh Fox, best known for his Oscar-nominated anti-fracking documentary Gasland, captured inside the DNC...
As DailyWire.com reports, Fox tells the camera... "This is amazing, this place is empty. There is nobody left in here. I mean this whole stadium, look at this," as he pans his cellphone to show the lack of cheering Dems.
He continues in disbelief, adding, "This is not voter enthusiasm.... I can't believe my eyes. I've never seen anything like this. This is the primetime of the Democratic National Convention right after the nomination of Hillary Clinton and this place is emptied out like crazy. I'm stunned."
"This is insane. The whole California delegation is pretty much gone," he adds. "I mean this has got to be something very worrisome for the Democrats. Voter enthusiasm wins elections."
The director goes on to explain that the states that Hillary won got seating up close to the stage and the Bernie state delegates were sent up to the cheap seats.
Is it then totally surprising that The DNC needed to hire 'seat-fillers'?
* * *
And here is proof:
The Russians did it...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23734-leaked-dnc-e-mails-show-federal-appointments-as-payoff-for-large-donors (Leaked DNC E-mails Show Federal Appointments as Payoff for Donors)
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/itemlist/user/15241-cmitchellshaw (C. Mitchell Shaw)
The fallout continues for the Democratic National Committee as more and more is known about what is in the nearly 20,000 leaked e-mails released to the Web by WikiLeaks. Still reeling from the clear evidence that they http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23719-leaked-dnc-e-mails-show-the-fix-was-in-for-hillary (manipulated events to rig the primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton), DNC leaders and staffers will now have to face the music over e-mails that show that at least some major donors were slated for federal appointments in a glaring example of quid pro quo.
The disclosure comes in part from documents — including a https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails//fileid/658/305 (spreadsheet) showing proposed appointments — sent as e-mail attachments. That spreadsheet — attached to https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/658 (an e-mail dated April 26) — shows the names of 23 high-level DNC donors who were slated for federal appointments if the Democrat candidate (who had not yet been chosen) were to win the presidential race. The vast majority of the people whose names appear on the list are also donors to the Clinton campaign. While some of the donors gave only to the DNC and not to Clinton, none of them gave to Sanders. This is one more piece of the puzzle demonstrating that the DNC — having fixed things for a Clinton nomination — was already certain enough of the outcome of the nomination process to begin putting wheels in motion to reward those who supported Clinton (or at least exclude those who supported Sanders) by way of cushy federal appointments.
While it has been largely assumed that this type of quid pro quo is the norm in both major political parties (where there is smoke, there is usually fire), this is the clearest piece of documented evidence ever to come to light.
The DNC and the Clinton campaign will have quite a time of disavowing this. The title of the document — Boards and Commissions Names_Final.xlsx — leaves little room to claim it was anything other than what it was: a list of people to be paid off at taxpayers’ expense.
The e-mail that included the spreadsheet (as an attachment) is part of an https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20352 (e-mail chain) that began on April 20 from DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan. In the e-mail, he wrote, “This is the last call for boards and commissions; if you have someone, send to comer [sic] - full name, city, state, email and phone number. Send as many as you want, just don’t know how many people will get to.”
Scott Comer — referred to as "comer" in the e-mail — is DNC Finance chief of staff.
When Jordan C. Vaughn responded to the e-mail to ask for clarification (“Boards and commissions? Sorry, I'm lost”), Comer replied, “Any folks who you’d like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.”
And while nothing in the text of the e-mails discusses the appointments as a recompense for large donations, it is worth remembering that the final list does not include anyone who was not a large donor — some of them gave hundreds of thousands to the DNC and the $2,700 maximum to Clinton — nor did it include anyone who gave so much as a dollar to the Sanders campaign. It is also worth noting that the “last call” for names for federal appointments to “boards and commissions” came from — and was apparently being decided by — the office that handled those donations.
WikiLeaks — having already greatly upset the DNC apple cart — is not finished yet. Julian Assange told CNN that the whistleblowing organization he started and continues to run while in exile may publish “a lot more material" related to the presidential race.
If he is following his playbook from the past, he may be saving the best (or worst) for last.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23734-leaked-dnc-e-mails-show-federal-appointments-as-payoff-for-large-donors (Leaked DNC E-mails Show Federal Appointments as Payoff for Donors)
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/itemlist/user/15241-cmitchellshaw (C. Mitchell Shaw)
The fallout continues for the Democratic National Committee as more and more is known about what is in the nearly 20,000 leaked e-mails released to the Web by WikiLeaks. Still reeling from the clear evidence that they http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/23719-leaked-dnc-e-mails-show-the-fix-was-in-for-hillary (manipulated events to rig the primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton), DNC leaders and staffers will now have to face the music over e-mails that show that at least some major donors were slated for federal appointments in a glaring example of quid pro quo.
The disclosure comes in part from documents — including a https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails//fileid/658/305 (spreadsheet) showing proposed appointments — sent as e-mail attachments. That spreadsheet — attached to https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/658 (an e-mail dated April 26) — shows the names of 23 high-level DNC donors who were slated for federal appointments if the Democrat candidate (who had not yet been chosen) were to win the presidential race. The vast majority of the people whose names appear on the list are also donors to the Clinton campaign. While some of the donors gave only to the DNC and not to Clinton, none of them gave to Sanders. This is one more piece of the puzzle demonstrating that the DNC — having fixed things for a Clinton nomination — was already certain enough of the outcome of the nomination process to begin putting wheels in motion to reward those who supported Clinton (or at least exclude those who supported Sanders) by way of cushy federal appointments.
While it has been largely assumed that this type of quid pro quo is the norm in both major political parties (where there is smoke, there is usually fire), this is the clearest piece of documented evidence ever to come to light.
The DNC and the Clinton campaign will have quite a time of disavowing this. The title of the document — Boards and Commissions Names_Final.xlsx — leaves little room to claim it was anything other than what it was: a list of people to be paid off at taxpayers’ expense.
The e-mail that included the spreadsheet (as an attachment) is part of an https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20352 (e-mail chain) that began on April 20 from DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan. In the e-mail, he wrote, “This is the last call for boards and commissions; if you have someone, send to comer [sic] - full name, city, state, email and phone number. Send as many as you want, just don’t know how many people will get to.”
Scott Comer — referred to as "comer" in the e-mail — is DNC Finance chief of staff.
When Jordan C. Vaughn responded to the e-mail to ask for clarification (“Boards and commissions? Sorry, I'm lost”), Comer replied, “Any folks who you’d like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.”
And while nothing in the text of the e-mails discusses the appointments as a recompense for large donations, it is worth remembering that the final list does not include anyone who was not a large donor — some of them gave hundreds of thousands to the DNC and the $2,700 maximum to Clinton — nor did it include anyone who gave so much as a dollar to the Sanders campaign. It is also worth noting that the “last call” for names for federal appointments to “boards and commissions” came from — and was apparently being decided by — the office that handled those donations.
WikiLeaks — having already greatly upset the DNC apple cart — is not finished yet. Julian Assange told CNN that the whistleblowing organization he started and continues to run while in exile may publish “a lot more material" related to the presidential race.
If he is following his playbook from the past, he may be saving the best (or worst) for last.
It’s a topsy-turvy world when Donald Trump advocates reinstating the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act to separate people’s deposits from speculative transactions first, while Hillary Clinton and her VP pick did not. And will not if they get to the White House.
Hillary’s Choice: Why Tim Kaine Isn’t a ‘Safe’ Pick
Nomi Prins
July 28, 2016
Once there was a Democratic senator from Virginia who managed to work across party lines to enact innovative legislation to protect ordinary Americans’ savings from bank speculation.
That is not the Virginia Democratic senator Hillary Clinton picked to be her running mate.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is no Carter Glass. Glass represented his fellow Virginians in Congress from 1901 to 1946, first in the House and then in the Senate. During the 1930s, he worked on a bill with Rep. Henry Steagall, an Alabama Democrat, that became the Glass-Steagall Act under Republican President Herbert Hoover.
The act they first fashioned in 1932 was a weaker precursor to another one that eventually passed with the support of the Republican banking community under Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But it was bold.
Carter Glass, who represented Virginia in Congress from 1901 until his death in 1946, co-authored the law that banned banks from speculating with depositors’ funds. It was overturned in 1999. (Photo courtesy of the US Senate Historical Office)
Not so Clinton’s choice of Kaine. It indicates a degree of tone-deafness to not just the progressives that supported the presidential bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but to the problems lurking at the core of the current banking system. Worse, it is a wink to JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to continue with business as usual.
Kaine’s real job is being the anti-progressive, corporately speaking. Rather than reflecting the “safe” pick that Hillary’s supporters argue he is, the selection reveals her desperate need for those last few months of campaign contributions to beat The Donald. She doesn’t need the $27 average-citizen contributions that were the cornerstone of Sanders’ fundraising machine. She needs Wall Street bucks, and can’t afford to tick off any big bank by running with someone vehemently opposed to their current composition.
When Sanders on Monday threw his might behind Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, he reassured his supporters that the party platform would now include breaking up the big banks and a 21st-century version of the Glass-Steagall Act. In fact, the wording is much vaguer than that. Here’s the relevant section from the Democrats’ platform:
Democrats will not hesitate to use and expand existing authorities as well as empower regulators to downsize or break apart financial institutions when necessary to protect the public and safeguard financial stability, including new authorities to go after risky shadow-banking activities. Banks should not be able to gamble with taxpayers’ deposits or pose an undue risk to Main Street. Democrats support a variety of ways to stop this from happening, including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall as well as breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to the stability of our economy.
It’s a topsy-turvy world when Donald Trump advocates reinstating the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act to separate people’s deposits from speculative transactions first, while Hillary Clinton and her VP pick did not. And will not if they get to the White House.
Consensus on Kaine is that he’s reliable (read: won’t upstage Hillary), checks all the boxes (read: won’t rock the political boat) and speaks Spanish (read: has foreign policy credentials). Republicans like him. More importantly for Hillary’s mindset, he’s no Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) (read: won’t derail her mega-fundraising drive, so the Wall Street crowd can now freely open their checkbooks into the homestretch). This is, however, a national financial liability.
We are left with two presidential tickets that convolute political rhetoric with economic stability. But consider these three big bipartisan votes: 1) the Glass Steagall Act in 1933, 2) Glass Steagall repeal in 1999, and 3) The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (that brought us TARP). They all share something in common beyond their overt bipartisan complexion: fear.
The first reflected the real fear that another major Depression would be caused by banks taking on too much risk in conjunction with their “day jobs” of taking deposits and providing loans.
The second perpetuated a trumped-up (sorry) fear that America would be left behind from a “competitive” and “innovated” global banking perspective, as per the arguments of Republican Treasury Secretaries (under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) Donald Regan and Nicholas Brady and then, more effectively by Democratic Treasury Secretaries (under Bill Clinton) Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.
The third was predicated on another visceral, yet concocted, fear that if Congress didn’t pony up funds to help the biggest banks survive their own recklessness, the world would collapse (recall this unpleasantly: George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, on his knees before then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi).
The Democrats (perhaps because most Republicans opposed it) went on to support the post-crisis Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, itself the handiwork of lobbyists and ex-bankers. The act passed by a vote of 60 to 39, with just three Republican senators joining 57 Democratic caucus members to push it through. Only former Sen. Russ Feingold (a Wisconsin Democrat who’s running to reclaim his old seat this year) opposed it on the grounds that is wasn’t tough enough on the banks. He is right.
For all the whining about its impact, Dodd-Frank absolutely, unequivocally DOES NOT separate risky bank activities from deposit and lending practices, nor does it dilute the high concentration of trading assets and derivatives held in the hands of a few large banks.
If we were talking about airplane safety and Hillary and Tim were our flight attendants, there would be no preflight safety briefing and no emergency landing plan until the nosedive.
This April, five of the nation’s top eight banks failed both the FDIC’s and Federal Reserve’s “living will” requirements as described under Dodd-Frank. In theory, these “living wills” are plans designed by the banks for the banks, that renders too-big-to-fail a relic of 2008. Under these wills, big banks provide detailed strategies under various crisis conditions to get out of trouble (if not jail) free of using taxpayer dollars.
Two of the banks passed one body’s test but failed the other’s. The FDIC found Goldman Sachs “not credible” and the Fed felt the same about Morgan Stanley. They couldn’t even be bothered to prepare for times of another crisis. Only Citigroup passed both. It is probably sheer coincidence that Obama’s current Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, was a former Citigroup executive in control of one of the least-regulated, most complex divisions there, the Alternative Investments group, and served as Clinton’s deputy secretary of state.
This amounts to an abject failure by the banks to do the homework they were assigned on behalf of the taxpayers who bailed them out, one of the most basic requests of Dodd-Frank. Seems the banks are too busy to even imagine how they’d get out of the next crisis. But you won’t hear any admonishment from Clinton or Kaine. You’ll hear that her Wall Street plan is better than reinstating Glass-Steagall, because as she’s said, major economists (those that don’t appear to fully understand how financial relationships and derivatives work) said so.
She will reference shadow-banking problems, which in her alternative universe, have no financing connections to big FDIC-insured banks. Again, probably sheer coincidence that the lion’s share of the money backing Clinton’s White House bid comes from the securities and investment sector, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Kaine will fall into line behind her. None of that will deter another bank-led financial crisis.
On July 18, Kaine was one of four senators signing a letter sent to a major regulatory trio — the Federal Reserve, FDIC and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — asking that they exclude large regional banks from the “significant burdens” of reporting risk on a daily, rather than monthly, basis. It also called for them for revisiting the “liquidity coverage ratio,” or the amount of capital these banks must hold over a 30-day period to cover emergency situations.
The senators’ request is clearly deregulatory and irresponsible: SunTrust, one of the banks that would fall under this exclusion, paid $1 billion to settle mortgage fraud allegations. Kaine advocates more leniency for a swath of FDIC-insured banks. Allowing some of the largest banks in the country a pass on risk reporting and prevention is not safe.
In general, Kaine advocates more leniency for a swath of FDIC-insured banks. Progressives, conservatives, liberals and libertarians should be worried about a banking system whose very structure (disregarding the minimal tweaks of Dodd-Frank) remains poised to tank the economy. Hillary and Tim would have us believe everything’s under control — for now. None of the issues listed on Tim Kaine’s official website mention Wall Street or bank regulation.
That’s a dangerous mistake of judgment.
Hillary’s Choice: Why Tim Kaine Isn’t a ‘Safe’ Pick
Nomi Prins
July 28, 2016
Once there was a Democratic senator from Virginia who managed to work across party lines to enact innovative legislation to protect ordinary Americans’ savings from bank speculation.
That is not the Virginia Democratic senator Hillary Clinton picked to be her running mate.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is no Carter Glass. Glass represented his fellow Virginians in Congress from 1901 to 1946, first in the House and then in the Senate. During the 1930s, he worked on a bill with Rep. Henry Steagall, an Alabama Democrat, that became the Glass-Steagall Act under Republican President Herbert Hoover.
The act they first fashioned in 1932 was a weaker precursor to another one that eventually passed with the support of the Republican banking community under Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But it was bold.
Carter Glass, who represented Virginia in Congress from 1901 until his death in 1946, co-authored the law that banned banks from speculating with depositors’ funds. It was overturned in 1999. (Photo courtesy of the US Senate Historical Office)
Not so Clinton’s choice of Kaine. It indicates a degree of tone-deafness to not just the progressives that supported the presidential bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but to the problems lurking at the core of the current banking system. Worse, it is a wink to JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to continue with business as usual.
Kaine’s real job is being the anti-progressive, corporately speaking. Rather than reflecting the “safe” pick that Hillary’s supporters argue he is, the selection reveals her desperate need for those last few months of campaign contributions to beat The Donald. She doesn’t need the $27 average-citizen contributions that were the cornerstone of Sanders’ fundraising machine. She needs Wall Street bucks, and can’t afford to tick off any big bank by running with someone vehemently opposed to their current composition.
When Sanders on Monday threw his might behind Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, he reassured his supporters that the party platform would now include breaking up the big banks and a 21st-century version of the Glass-Steagall Act. In fact, the wording is much vaguer than that. Here’s the relevant section from the Democrats’ platform:
Democrats will not hesitate to use and expand existing authorities as well as empower regulators to downsize or break apart financial institutions when necessary to protect the public and safeguard financial stability, including new authorities to go after risky shadow-banking activities. Banks should not be able to gamble with taxpayers’ deposits or pose an undue risk to Main Street. Democrats support a variety of ways to stop this from happening, including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall as well as breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to the stability of our economy.
It’s a topsy-turvy world when Donald Trump advocates reinstating the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act to separate people’s deposits from speculative transactions first, while Hillary Clinton and her VP pick did not. And will not if they get to the White House.
Consensus on Kaine is that he’s reliable (read: won’t upstage Hillary), checks all the boxes (read: won’t rock the political boat) and speaks Spanish (read: has foreign policy credentials). Republicans like him. More importantly for Hillary’s mindset, he’s no Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) (read: won’t derail her mega-fundraising drive, so the Wall Street crowd can now freely open their checkbooks into the homestretch). This is, however, a national financial liability.
We are left with two presidential tickets that convolute political rhetoric with economic stability. But consider these three big bipartisan votes: 1) the Glass Steagall Act in 1933, 2) Glass Steagall repeal in 1999, and 3) The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (that brought us TARP). They all share something in common beyond their overt bipartisan complexion: fear.
The first reflected the real fear that another major Depression would be caused by banks taking on too much risk in conjunction with their “day jobs” of taking deposits and providing loans.
The second perpetuated a trumped-up (sorry) fear that America would be left behind from a “competitive” and “innovated” global banking perspective, as per the arguments of Republican Treasury Secretaries (under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) Donald Regan and Nicholas Brady and then, more effectively by Democratic Treasury Secretaries (under Bill Clinton) Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.
The third was predicated on another visceral, yet concocted, fear that if Congress didn’t pony up funds to help the biggest banks survive their own recklessness, the world would collapse (recall this unpleasantly: George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, on his knees before then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi).
The Democrats (perhaps because most Republicans opposed it) went on to support the post-crisis Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, itself the handiwork of lobbyists and ex-bankers. The act passed by a vote of 60 to 39, with just three Republican senators joining 57 Democratic caucus members to push it through. Only former Sen. Russ Feingold (a Wisconsin Democrat who’s running to reclaim his old seat this year) opposed it on the grounds that is wasn’t tough enough on the banks. He is right.
For all the whining about its impact, Dodd-Frank absolutely, unequivocally DOES NOT separate risky bank activities from deposit and lending practices, nor does it dilute the high concentration of trading assets and derivatives held in the hands of a few large banks.
If we were talking about airplane safety and Hillary and Tim were our flight attendants, there would be no preflight safety briefing and no emergency landing plan until the nosedive.
This April, five of the nation’s top eight banks failed both the FDIC’s and Federal Reserve’s “living will” requirements as described under Dodd-Frank. In theory, these “living wills” are plans designed by the banks for the banks, that renders too-big-to-fail a relic of 2008. Under these wills, big banks provide detailed strategies under various crisis conditions to get out of trouble (if not jail) free of using taxpayer dollars.
Two of the banks passed one body’s test but failed the other’s. The FDIC found Goldman Sachs “not credible” and the Fed felt the same about Morgan Stanley. They couldn’t even be bothered to prepare for times of another crisis. Only Citigroup passed both. It is probably sheer coincidence that Obama’s current Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, was a former Citigroup executive in control of one of the least-regulated, most complex divisions there, the Alternative Investments group, and served as Clinton’s deputy secretary of state.
This amounts to an abject failure by the banks to do the homework they were assigned on behalf of the taxpayers who bailed them out, one of the most basic requests of Dodd-Frank. Seems the banks are too busy to even imagine how they’d get out of the next crisis. But you won’t hear any admonishment from Clinton or Kaine. You’ll hear that her Wall Street plan is better than reinstating Glass-Steagall, because as she’s said, major economists (those that don’t appear to fully understand how financial relationships and derivatives work) said so.
She will reference shadow-banking problems, which in her alternative universe, have no financing connections to big FDIC-insured banks. Again, probably sheer coincidence that the lion’s share of the money backing Clinton’s White House bid comes from the securities and investment sector, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Kaine will fall into line behind her. None of that will deter another bank-led financial crisis.
On July 18, Kaine was one of four senators signing a letter sent to a major regulatory trio — the Federal Reserve, FDIC and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — asking that they exclude large regional banks from the “significant burdens” of reporting risk on a daily, rather than monthly, basis. It also called for them for revisiting the “liquidity coverage ratio,” or the amount of capital these banks must hold over a 30-day period to cover emergency situations.
The senators’ request is clearly deregulatory and irresponsible: SunTrust, one of the banks that would fall under this exclusion, paid $1 billion to settle mortgage fraud allegations. Kaine advocates more leniency for a swath of FDIC-insured banks. Allowing some of the largest banks in the country a pass on risk reporting and prevention is not safe.
In general, Kaine advocates more leniency for a swath of FDIC-insured banks. Progressives, conservatives, liberals and libertarians should be worried about a banking system whose very structure (disregarding the minimal tweaks of Dodd-Frank) remains poised to tank the economy. Hillary and Tim would have us believe everything’s under control — for now. None of the issues listed on Tim Kaine’s official website mention Wall Street or bank regulation.
That’s a dangerous mistake of judgment.
The Full List Of Hillary's Planned Tax Hikes
Jul 29, 2016 2:57 PM
Submitted by John Kartch and Alexander Hendrie via Americans for Tax Reform,
Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an "Exit Tax" and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign’s own figures.
Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It’s no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a “goal.” In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.
Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:
But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion. For instance:
ATR is tracking Clinton’s full tax record at its dedicated website, HighTaxHillary.com
Jul 29, 2016 2:57 PM
Submitted by John Kartch and Alexander Hendrie via Americans for Tax Reform,
Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an "Exit Tax" and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign’s own figures.
Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It’s no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a “goal.” In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.
Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:
Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.
Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign document.
“Fairness” Tax Increase --$400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.
Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign document.
“Fairness” Tax Increase --$400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.
But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion. For instance:
Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.
Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.
“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.
This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.
Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.
“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.
This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.
ATR is tracking Clinton’s full tax record at its dedicated website, HighTaxHillary.com
Obama's brother is voting Trump, that has to tell you something
Election Justice USA Study Finds that Without Election Fraud Sanders Would Have Won by Landslide
Jul 29, 2016 7:28am EST by Joynter
Election Justice USA finds that Bernie Sanders lost an estimated 184 delegates to Election Fraud:
Well, 184 is only the upper estimate considering election fraud. Not even counting in the immense MSM bias, lack of debates, DNC bias/shenenigans outside of fraud, Hillary’s huge funding thanks to corruption… It should have been a landslide for Bernie!
The following is from the last page of the entire report:
A. CONCLUSIONS
We have aimed to provide an overview of the evidence for various types of fraud and targeted voter suppression impacting the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. After covering the legal background and the history of Election Justice USA’s legal actions, our best efforts to combat election fraud and voter suppression, we gave a thorough treatment of:
1) Targeted voter suppression
2) Registration tampering
3) Illegal voter purges
4) Exit polling discrepancies
5) Evidence for voting machine tampering
6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types
Finally, we gave a date-by-date, state-by-state overview of each of these fraud or suppression types at work throughout the course of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
We conclude by calling for decertification of the 2016 Democratic primary results in every state in which we have established a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the vote tally.
Jul 29, 2016 7:28am EST by Joynter
Election Justice USA finds that Bernie Sanders lost an estimated 184 delegates to Election Fraud:
Well, 184 is only the upper estimate considering election fraud. Not even counting in the immense MSM bias, lack of debates, DNC bias/shenenigans outside of fraud, Hillary’s huge funding thanks to corruption… It should have been a landslide for Bernie!
The following is from the last page of the entire report:
A. CONCLUSIONS
We have aimed to provide an overview of the evidence for various types of fraud and targeted voter suppression impacting the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. After covering the legal background and the history of Election Justice USA’s legal actions, our best efforts to combat election fraud and voter suppression, we gave a thorough treatment of:
1) Targeted voter suppression
2) Registration tampering
3) Illegal voter purges
4) Exit polling discrepancies
5) Evidence for voting machine tampering
6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types
Finally, we gave a date-by-date, state-by-state overview of each of these fraud or suppression types at work throughout the course of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
We conclude by calling for decertification of the 2016 Democratic primary results in every state in which we have established a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the vote tally.
The Houston Chronicle endorses only their 3rd Democrat in 52 years. Putting country before party.
These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board endorses Hillary Clinton.
These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.
On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.
Her opponent
The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.
An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.
Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.
It's telling that so many Republicans have distanced themselves from their party's nominee. That sizeable list includes a number of prominent Texans, Bush family members foremost among them, as well as Sen. Cruz and House Speaker Joe Straus. These stalwart Republicans are concerned not only about the future of their party (and, with the exception of the two Bush presidents, their own political careers), but, more important, they're concerned about the future of this nation.
It would not be surprising to discover that these experienced politicians and public servants share the existential concern that first lady Michelle Obama raised in her powerful speech on behalf of Clinton at the party convention in Philadelphia: "Because when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military at your command, you can't make snap decisions. You can't have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. You need to be steady and measured and well-informed."
Experience
Americans know Hillary Clinton; post-Philadelphia, they're even better acquainted with "the real Hillary Clinton," as her husband phrased it. After her quarter century and more in the public eye, they know her strengths and her weaknesses. Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to her experience as first lady, as U.S. senator, as secretary of state and as candidate for president will have at least a general notion of her positions on the issues. As President Obama noted, she's the most qualified person in years to serve as president - "and that includes Bill and me." The only candidate to come close is George H.W. Bush.
Whether voters like her personally is almost irrelevant at this "moment of reckoning," to use Clinton's words. She herself concedes that she's not a natural campaigner. She lacks Obama's oratorical gifts or her husband's folksy ability to connect with crowds. Too often she comes across as calculated, inauthentic. We're confident that she is, indeed, "steady and measured and well-informed" and that she would be a much better president than a presidential candidate.
…
Temperament
We could go on with issues, including her plans for sensible gun safety and for combatting terrorism - her policy positions are laid out in detail on her campaign web site - but issues in this election are almost secondary to questions of character and trustworthiness. We reject the "cartoon version" of Hillary Clinton (again to borrow her husband's phrase) in favor of a presidential candidate who has the temperament, the ability and the experience to lead this nation.
These are unsettling times, even if they're not the dark, dystopian end times that Trump lays out. They require a steady hand. That's not Donald Trump.
The times also require a person who envisions a hopeful future for this nation, a person who has faith in the strong, prosperous and confident America we hope to bequeath our children and grandchildren, as first lady Michelle Obama so eloquently envisioned in Philadelphia. That's not Donald Trump's America.
It is Hillary Clinton's, who reminded her listeners Thursday night that "When there are no ceilings, the sky's the limit."
America's first female president would be in the Oval Office more than a century and a half after a determined group of women launched the women's suffrage movement, almost a century after women in this country won the right to vote. It's a milestone, to be sure. Few could have imagined it would be so consequential.
These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board endorses Hillary Clinton.
These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.
On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.
Her opponent
The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.
An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.
Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.
It's telling that so many Republicans have distanced themselves from their party's nominee. That sizeable list includes a number of prominent Texans, Bush family members foremost among them, as well as Sen. Cruz and House Speaker Joe Straus. These stalwart Republicans are concerned not only about the future of their party (and, with the exception of the two Bush presidents, their own political careers), but, more important, they're concerned about the future of this nation.
It would not be surprising to discover that these experienced politicians and public servants share the existential concern that first lady Michelle Obama raised in her powerful speech on behalf of Clinton at the party convention in Philadelphia: "Because when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military at your command, you can't make snap decisions. You can't have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. You need to be steady and measured and well-informed."
Experience
Americans know Hillary Clinton; post-Philadelphia, they're even better acquainted with "the real Hillary Clinton," as her husband phrased it. After her quarter century and more in the public eye, they know her strengths and her weaknesses. Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to her experience as first lady, as U.S. senator, as secretary of state and as candidate for president will have at least a general notion of her positions on the issues. As President Obama noted, she's the most qualified person in years to serve as president - "and that includes Bill and me." The only candidate to come close is George H.W. Bush.
Whether voters like her personally is almost irrelevant at this "moment of reckoning," to use Clinton's words. She herself concedes that she's not a natural campaigner. She lacks Obama's oratorical gifts or her husband's folksy ability to connect with crowds. Too often she comes across as calculated, inauthentic. We're confident that she is, indeed, "steady and measured and well-informed" and that she would be a much better president than a presidential candidate.
…
Temperament
We could go on with issues, including her plans for sensible gun safety and for combatting terrorism - her policy positions are laid out in detail on her campaign web site - but issues in this election are almost secondary to questions of character and trustworthiness. We reject the "cartoon version" of Hillary Clinton (again to borrow her husband's phrase) in favor of a presidential candidate who has the temperament, the ability and the experience to lead this nation.
These are unsettling times, even if they're not the dark, dystopian end times that Trump lays out. They require a steady hand. That's not Donald Trump.
The times also require a person who envisions a hopeful future for this nation, a person who has faith in the strong, prosperous and confident America we hope to bequeath our children and grandchildren, as first lady Michelle Obama so eloquently envisioned in Philadelphia. That's not Donald Trump's America.
It is Hillary Clinton's, who reminded her listeners Thursday night that "When there are no ceilings, the sky's the limit."
America's first female president would be in the Oval Office more than a century and a half after a determined group of women launched the women's suffrage movement, almost a century after women in this country won the right to vote. It's a milestone, to be sure. Few could have imagined it would be so consequential.
Opinion: All the terrible things Hillary Clinton has done — in one big list
All the terrible things Hillary Clinton has done — in one big list
Here they are:
1. When she was first lady, she murdered White House lawyer Vince Foster and then dumped his body in a park.
2. She drove Vince Foster to commit suicide through her temper tantrums.
3. She was having an affair with Vince Foster.
4. She’s a lesbian.
5. Chelsea isn’t Bill Clinton’s child.
6. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up that she once bought a tract of undeveloped land in Arkansas and lost money.
7. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up her role in firing the White House travel department.
8. After she murdered Vince Foster, she ransacked his office in the middle of the night and stole all the documents proving her guilt.
9. When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, she was a partner in the state’s top law firm, and it sometimes did work involving the state government.
10. She once invested in commodities futures on the advice of a friend and made $100,000, proving she’s a crook.
11. She once invested in real estate on the advice of another friend and lost $100,000, also proving she’s a crook.
12. Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat.
13. The personnel murdered at Benghazi make her the first secretary of state to lose overseas personnel to terrorism — apart from Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Schultz, Dean Rusk and some others.
14. Four State Department staff were murdered at Benghazi, compared with only 119 others murdered overseas under every secretary of state combined since World War II.
15. She illegally sent classified emails from her personal server, except that apparently they weren’t classified at the time.
16. She may have cynically wriggled around the email law by “technically” complying with it.
17. She once signed a lucrative book contract when she was a private citizen.
18. Donald Trump says she “should be in jail,” and he’s a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know.
19. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay says his “law-enforcement sources” tell him she is “about to be indicted” — and if a man once convicted of money laundering and conspiracy doesn’t have good law-enforcement sources, who does?
20. She’s a hard-left radical who wants to break up the nuclear family.
21. She’s a conservative “mousewife” who refused to break up her own family.
22. She’s in favor of single moms.
23. She refused to be a single mom.
24. When she was first lady of Arkansas, she pandered to conservative voters by dyeing her hair.
25. Before that, she totally insulted them by refusing to.
26. She’s a frump.
27. She spends too much money on designer dresses.
28. She has “cankles.”
29. She has a grating voice.
30. She yells into the microphone.
31. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks.
32. She’s in the pay of the mafia.
33. She’s in the pay of the Chinese government.
34. She’s in the pay of the Wall Street banks.
35. In order to suppress the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, she cleverly packed them up and took them to the White House rather than shredding them.
36. When she handed over the documents to public officials, they couldn’t find any evidence she’d committed any crimes, so she must have doctored them.
37. Congress spent tens of millions of dollars and six years investigating her investment in the Whitewater real-estate project, and, while they didn’t actually find anything, they wouldn’t have spent all that money if there weren’t something there.
38. By cleverly hiding all evidence of her crimes in the Whitewater affair, she caused Congress to waste all that taxpayers’ money.
39. When she ran for senator of New York, she was still a fan of the Chicago Cubs.
40. She once said the Clintons were thinking of adopting a child, and they didn’t follow through.
41. She was photographed holding her hand near her mouth during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
42. She’s got brain damage.
43. She’s old.
44. She’s really ambitious and calculating, unlike all the other people running for president.
45. She secretly supported Palestinian terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists and Guatemalan terrorists.
46. She secretly supported a group that wants to give Maine back to the Indians.
47. She’s a secret follower of “radical prophet” Saul Alinsky.
48. She did her law degree at Yale, and it’s a well-known “socialist finishing school.”
49. When she was young, she did things to build up her résumé rather than just for their own good.
50. When Bill was president, she “allowed” him to keep people waiting.
51. She’s married to a sex addict.
52. She’s an enemy of traditional marriage.
53. She didn’t divorce her husband.
54. His philandering is her fault because she is too strong, and too weak, and too frumpy, and too fat, and too cold.
55. She’s hostile to women who fool around with her husband.
56. A divorced taxi driver in Florida told me that if Hillary is elected president, “women will take over everything.”
57. She insulted Tammy Wynette.
58. When they left the White House, she and Bill bought a big house in New York that they couldn’t afford.
59. She sometimes calls her staff during dinner, even when they’re out at a restaurant.
60. She claimed there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband, and it turned out there was nothing but a bunch of tycoons financing private investigators, and some fake think tanks and books and news sites and stuff.
61. When she got married, she didn’t “stay at home and bake cookies.”
62. She supported the Iraq war because she’s a secret foreign-policy conservative.
63. She’s a secret foreign-policy radical with a plan to impose worldwide “radical social experimentation” through the World Bank.
64. She is secretly plotting to let children sue their parents for making them take out the garbage.
65. She looked bored during the Benghazi hearings.
66. Oh, yeah — and she totally has a vagina.
It’s clear: Hillary must be stopped. Hearings now!
All the terrible things Hillary Clinton has done — in one big list
Here they are:
1. When she was first lady, she murdered White House lawyer Vince Foster and then dumped his body in a park.
2. She drove Vince Foster to commit suicide through her temper tantrums.
3. She was having an affair with Vince Foster.
4. She’s a lesbian.
5. Chelsea isn’t Bill Clinton’s child.
6. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up that she once bought a tract of undeveloped land in Arkansas and lost money.
7. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up her role in firing the White House travel department.
8. After she murdered Vince Foster, she ransacked his office in the middle of the night and stole all the documents proving her guilt.
9. When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, she was a partner in the state’s top law firm, and it sometimes did work involving the state government.
10. She once invested in commodities futures on the advice of a friend and made $100,000, proving she’s a crook.
11. She once invested in real estate on the advice of another friend and lost $100,000, also proving she’s a crook.
12. Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat.
13. The personnel murdered at Benghazi make her the first secretary of state to lose overseas personnel to terrorism — apart from Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Schultz, Dean Rusk and some others.
14. Four State Department staff were murdered at Benghazi, compared with only 119 others murdered overseas under every secretary of state combined since World War II.
15. She illegally sent classified emails from her personal server, except that apparently they weren’t classified at the time.
16. She may have cynically wriggled around the email law by “technically” complying with it.
17. She once signed a lucrative book contract when she was a private citizen.
18. Donald Trump says she “should be in jail,” and he’s a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know.
19. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay says his “law-enforcement sources” tell him she is “about to be indicted” — and if a man once convicted of money laundering and conspiracy doesn’t have good law-enforcement sources, who does?
20. She’s a hard-left radical who wants to break up the nuclear family.
21. She’s a conservative “mousewife” who refused to break up her own family.
22. She’s in favor of single moms.
23. She refused to be a single mom.
24. When she was first lady of Arkansas, she pandered to conservative voters by dyeing her hair.
25. Before that, she totally insulted them by refusing to.
26. She’s a frump.
27. She spends too much money on designer dresses.
28. She has “cankles.”
29. She has a grating voice.
30. She yells into the microphone.
31. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks.
32. She’s in the pay of the mafia.
33. She’s in the pay of the Chinese government.
34. She’s in the pay of the Wall Street banks.
35. In order to suppress the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, she cleverly packed them up and took them to the White House rather than shredding them.
36. When she handed over the documents to public officials, they couldn’t find any evidence she’d committed any crimes, so she must have doctored them.
37. Congress spent tens of millions of dollars and six years investigating her investment in the Whitewater real-estate project, and, while they didn’t actually find anything, they wouldn’t have spent all that money if there weren’t something there.
38. By cleverly hiding all evidence of her crimes in the Whitewater affair, she caused Congress to waste all that taxpayers’ money.
39. When she ran for senator of New York, she was still a fan of the Chicago Cubs.
40. She once said the Clintons were thinking of adopting a child, and they didn’t follow through.
41. She was photographed holding her hand near her mouth during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
42. She’s got brain damage.
43. She’s old.
44. She’s really ambitious and calculating, unlike all the other people running for president.
45. She secretly supported Palestinian terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists and Guatemalan terrorists.
46. She secretly supported a group that wants to give Maine back to the Indians.
47. She’s a secret follower of “radical prophet” Saul Alinsky.
48. She did her law degree at Yale, and it’s a well-known “socialist finishing school.”
49. When she was young, she did things to build up her résumé rather than just for their own good.
50. When Bill was president, she “allowed” him to keep people waiting.
51. She’s married to a sex addict.
52. She’s an enemy of traditional marriage.
53. She didn’t divorce her husband.
54. His philandering is her fault because she is too strong, and too weak, and too frumpy, and too fat, and too cold.
55. She’s hostile to women who fool around with her husband.
56. A divorced taxi driver in Florida told me that if Hillary is elected president, “women will take over everything.”
57. She insulted Tammy Wynette.
58. When they left the White House, she and Bill bought a big house in New York that they couldn’t afford.
59. She sometimes calls her staff during dinner, even when they’re out at a restaurant.
60. She claimed there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband, and it turned out there was nothing but a bunch of tycoons financing private investigators, and some fake think tanks and books and news sites and stuff.
61. When she got married, she didn’t “stay at home and bake cookies.”
62. She supported the Iraq war because she’s a secret foreign-policy conservative.
63. She’s a secret foreign-policy radical with a plan to impose worldwide “radical social experimentation” through the World Bank.
64. She is secretly plotting to let children sue their parents for making them take out the garbage.
65. She looked bored during the Benghazi hearings.
66. Oh, yeah — and she totally has a vagina.
It’s clear: Hillary must be stopped. Hearings now!
Why The IRS Is Probing The Clinton Foundation
Tyler Durden
Jul 31, 2016 2:30 PM
"Clinton Cash" author, Peter Schweizer, recently took to the airwaves to explain why the IRS investigation of the Clinton Foundation should be a "big deal" (also see Clinton Cash: "Devastating" Documentary Reveals How Clintons Went From "Dead Broke" To Mega Wealthy") even though he expressed some "skepticism" over the ability of Obama's IRS to run an impartial investigation. As we we've reported (see "IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation"), the IRS recently launched an investigation of the Clinton Foundation after receiving a letter signed by 64 Republicans of the House of Representative which described the Clinton Foundation as a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years.”
Somehow we, too, are doubtful that the IRS will lead this investigation with the same kind of vigor they displayed when looking into local Tea Party organizations and religious charities during the last election cycle.
When asked why the IRS should be concerned about the Clinton Foundation, Mr. Schweizer explained:
Mr. Schweizer continued by calling into question why foreign governments and wealthy foreign individuals, many from the middle east, would contribute money to the Clinton Foundation given the limited scope of their actual charitable outreach:
We're certain Mr. Schweizer is "overreacting". After all we're pretty sure the State of Kuwait, Friends of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, The Government of Brunei Darussalam and The Sultanate of Oman, all Clinton Foundation contributors (see full list below), are eagerly involved in the Clinton Foundation's project entitled "No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project" whose stated goal is building an "evidence-based case to chart the path forward for the full participation of girls and women in the 21st century."
A full list of entities/individuals that have madebribes contributions in excess of $1mm to the Clinton Foundation over the years can be found below (click for a larger image):
Finally, when asked why the Obama administration would allow the Clinton Foundation to continue to solicit cash from foreign governments even as she served as Secretary of State, Mr. Schweizer noted that, in fact, Obama conditioned his appointment of Clinton to Secretary of State on her agreement to "disclose all donors"...a condition which Clinton promptly ignored.
The full interview with Mr. Schweizer can be viewed below:
In light of the IRS investigation, we also decided to take a quick look at the Clinton Foundation financials (full reports can be found here). To our "surprise," we discovered that, in fact, only 13.6% of the $248 million of expenditures made by the Foundation in 2014 were for "direct program expenditures" while the remainder went to salaries and amorphous expense buckets like "Professional and Consulting" and "Meetings and Training." We're very hopeful that this is the type of "efficiency" that Hillary can bring to the various federal organizations. After all, spending 13.6 cents of every dollar on actual stated objectives would be a huge improvement for many federal entities.
The full 2014 audited financials of the Clinton Foundation can be viewed [in the full article]
Tyler Durden
Jul 31, 2016 2:30 PM
"Clinton Cash" author, Peter Schweizer, recently took to the airwaves to explain why the IRS investigation of the Clinton Foundation should be a "big deal" (also see Clinton Cash: "Devastating" Documentary Reveals How Clintons Went From "Dead Broke" To Mega Wealthy") even though he expressed some "skepticism" over the ability of Obama's IRS to run an impartial investigation. As we we've reported (see "IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation"), the IRS recently launched an investigation of the Clinton Foundation after receiving a letter signed by 64 Republicans of the House of Representative which described the Clinton Foundation as a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years.”
Somehow we, too, are doubtful that the IRS will lead this investigation with the same kind of vigor they displayed when looking into local Tea Party organizations and religious charities during the last election cycle.
When asked why the IRS should be concerned about the Clinton Foundation, Mr. Schweizer explained:
"The big deal is that...there are international anti-bribery standards that say bribing a public official can mean giving them money, giving their family money, or giving their charity money. Just because it's a charity doesn't mean that it's not important or not interesting...it constitutes bribery every bit as much as if somebody's putting money in somebody's pocket for a benefit."
Mr. Schweizer continued by calling into question why foreign governments and wealthy foreign individuals, many from the middle east, would contribute money to the Clinton Foundation given the limited scope of their actual charitable outreach:
"When you look at the people who are giving large sums of money overseas they are people who have histories of corruption or being involved in bribery scandals."
We're certain Mr. Schweizer is "overreacting". After all we're pretty sure the State of Kuwait, Friends of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, The Government of Brunei Darussalam and The Sultanate of Oman, all Clinton Foundation contributors (see full list below), are eagerly involved in the Clinton Foundation's project entitled "No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project" whose stated goal is building an "evidence-based case to chart the path forward for the full participation of girls and women in the 21st century."
A full list of entities/individuals that have made
Finally, when asked why the Obama administration would allow the Clinton Foundation to continue to solicit cash from foreign governments even as she served as Secretary of State, Mr. Schweizer noted that, in fact, Obama conditioned his appointment of Clinton to Secretary of State on her agreement to "disclose all donors"...a condition which Clinton promptly ignored.
"We know now that there at least 1,100 contributions from foreign sources they still haven't disclosed."
The full interview with Mr. Schweizer can be viewed below:
In light of the IRS investigation, we also decided to take a quick look at the Clinton Foundation financials (full reports can be found here). To our "surprise," we discovered that, in fact, only 13.6% of the $248 million of expenditures made by the Foundation in 2014 were for "direct program expenditures" while the remainder went to salaries and amorphous expense buckets like "Professional and Consulting" and "Meetings and Training." We're very hopeful that this is the type of "efficiency" that Hillary can bring to the various federal organizations. After all, spending 13.6 cents of every dollar on actual stated objectives would be a huge improvement for many federal entities.
The full 2014 audited financials of the Clinton Foundation can be viewed [in the full article]
This brings back some fond memories of the Clintons involvement in the Arkanasas Finance and Developement Authority way back when he/she were governors of Arkansas.
If I remember correctly a senate investigation of the drugs and money laundering was shut down.
It runs in the family.
If I remember correctly a senate investigation of the drugs and money laundering was shut down.
It runs in the family.
Whistleblower's Stunning Claim: "NSA Has All Of Hillary's Deleted Emails, It May Be The Leak"
Tyler Durden
Aug 1, 2016 3:58 AM
Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis, a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that Snowden would substantiate the following summer.
We covered it in a 2012 post titled “We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received little attention in 2012 - his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney has to say has become gospel.
William Binney, NSA whistleblower
Which is why we are confident that at least a subset of the US population will express great interest in what Binney said earlier today, when the famous whistleblower said in a radio interview on Sunday that the NSA has “all” of Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official.
Speaking on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton’s compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.
Binney was an architect of the NSA’s surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI’s ability to access various secretive databases “to track down known and suspected terrorists.”
“So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now,” he said of Clinton’s emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of “all” of Clinton’s emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney confirmed.
“Yes,” he responded. “That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there.”
Binney then went on to speculate about something even more shocking: that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton’s compromise of national security data with her email use.
According to Klein, the GAMMA classification is defined as follows: "GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was)."
It would be truly ironic if instead of the Democrat hack originating at the Kremlin, as the media and Hillary have already concluded is the case without any actual proof, the true source of Hillary's hacked and leaked emails is none other than an unknown crusader at the the NSA itself, another "Snowden", determined to see the downfall of Clinton after her actions exposed national security to unprecedented risk for years. Alas we will never know: as we reported yesterday, it is the NSA that has been tasked with determining if Putin was responsible. We doubt it will find anything, however we are certain that it won't find itself to be the culprit.
Tyler Durden
Aug 1, 2016 3:58 AM
Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis, a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that Snowden would substantiate the following summer.
We covered it in a 2012 post titled “We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received little attention in 2012 - his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney has to say has become gospel.
William Binney, NSA whistleblower
Which is why we are confident that at least a subset of the US population will express great interest in what Binney said earlier today, when the famous whistleblower said in a radio interview on Sunday that the NSA has “all” of Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official.
Speaking on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton’s compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.
Binney was an architect of the NSA’s surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI’s ability to access various secretive databases “to track down known and suspected terrorists.”
“Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails.”
“So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now,” he said of Clinton’s emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of “all” of Clinton’s emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney confirmed.
“Yes,” he responded. “That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there.”
Binney then went on to speculate about something even more shocking: that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton’s compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she’s got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don’t necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
According to Klein, the GAMMA classification is defined as follows: "GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was)."
It would be truly ironic if instead of the Democrat hack originating at the Kremlin, as the media and Hillary have already concluded is the case without any actual proof, the true source of Hillary's hacked and leaked emails is none other than an unknown crusader at the the NSA itself, another "Snowden", determined to see the downfall of Clinton after her actions exposed national security to unprecedented risk for years. Alas we will never know: as we reported yesterday, it is the NSA that has been tasked with determining if Putin was responsible. We doubt it will find anything, however we are certain that it won't find itself to be the culprit.
I thought Trump was Putin's man...
Hillary’s Latest Headache: Skolkovo
Tyler Durden
Aug 1, 2016 9:28 AM
The subject of Russia’s influence in American politics has been a hot topic of late, particularly as the MSM continues to link Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and the DNC hack. However, a report published by the http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/07/Report-Skolkvovo-.pdf presents a new twist in the Kremlin-US political ties. It all started with the 2009 “Russian reset” touted by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As detailed in a WSJ op-ed by Peter Schweizer (author of the GAI report), after President Obama visited Russia in 2009, both nations agreed to “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint pI rojects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”
One such project was Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley. As chief diplomat, Hillary was in charge of courting US companies to invest in this new Russian city. Russia, on the other hand, had committed to spend $5 billion over the next three years (2009-12).
Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
As Schweizer continues, “soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.
By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.”
Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton…
Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity”
Thus far, this should not be surprising. It is yet another instance of crony capitalism that has so well characterized the Clintons over the years. However, as US intelligence agencies including the FBI were soon to find out, the Russian Silicon Valley served other purposes as well.
More from the WSJ op-ed: “The state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature…”
“The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies. The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”
As Schweizer concludes:
Hillary’s Latest Headache: Skolkovo
Tyler Durden
Aug 1, 2016 9:28 AM
The subject of Russia’s influence in American politics has been a hot topic of late, particularly as the MSM continues to link Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and the DNC hack. However, a report published by the http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/07/Report-Skolkvovo-.pdf presents a new twist in the Kremlin-US political ties. It all started with the 2009 “Russian reset” touted by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As detailed in a WSJ op-ed by Peter Schweizer (author of the GAI report), after President Obama visited Russia in 2009, both nations agreed to “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint pI rojects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”
One such project was Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley. As chief diplomat, Hillary was in charge of courting US companies to invest in this new Russian city. Russia, on the other hand, had committed to spend $5 billion over the next three years (2009-12).
Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
As Schweizer continues, “soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.
By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.”
Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton…
Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity”
Thus far, this should not be surprising. It is yet another instance of crony capitalism that has so well characterized the Clintons over the years. However, as US intelligence agencies including the FBI were soon to find out, the Russian Silicon Valley served other purposes as well.
More from the WSJ op-ed: “The state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature…”
“The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies. The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”
As Schweizer concludes:
Even if it could be proven that these tens of millions of dollars in Clinton Foundation donations by Skolkovo’s key partners played no role in the Clinton State Department’s missing or ignoring obvious red flags about the Russian enterprise, the perception would still be problematic. (Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.) What is known is that the State Department recruited and facilitated the commitment of billions of American dollars in the creation of a Russian “Silicon Valley” whose technological innovations include Russian hypersonic cruise-missile engines, radar surveillance equipment, and vehicles capable of delivering airborne Russian troops.
A Russian reset, indeed.
Naturally, the Hillary campaign did not reply to any requests from Schweizer on the report. But we are comfortable that HRC’s response would likely be along the lines “what difference at this point does it make?”A Russian reset, indeed.
3 of 4 NYT bestsellers are anti-Clinton books
By Paul Bedard 8/2/16
Anti-Hillary Clinton books top the NYT best-seller list
Washington Examiner
For the first time, three of the top four New York Times nonfiction best sellers are anti-Clinton books.
Two new books jumped to the front of the all-important hardcover nonfiction list just this week: https://www.amazon.com/Armageddon-How-Trump-Beat-Hillary-ebook/dp/B01FCLLLDQ?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 (Armageddon,) by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, and https://www.amazon.com/Hillarys-America-Secret-History-Democratic-ebook/dp/B01F1G6FJ2?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 (Hillary's America,) by Dinesh D'Souza.
They join No. 1 https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Character-Discloses-Firsthand-Experience-ebook/dp/B01C3LHS44?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 (Crisis of Character) by former Secret Serviceman Gary J. Byrne which has been on top of the list for four straight weeks.
Only Hamilton: The Revolution, by Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, breaks up the anti-Clinton string of books.
Here is how Amazon describes the books:
— Crisis of Character. In this runaway #1 New York Times bestseller, former secret service officer Gary Byrne, who was posted directly outside President Clinton's oval office, reveals what he observed of Hillary Clinton's character and the culture inside the White House while protecting the First Family in CRISIS OF CHARACTER, the most anticipated book of the 2016 election.
— Hillary's America. Dinesh D'Souza, author of the #1 New York Times bestseller America: Imagine a World Without Her, has a warning: We are on the brink of losing our country forever. After eight years of Obama, four years—or possibly eight years—of Hillary Clinton as president of the United States would so utterly transform America as to make it unrecognizable.
— Armageddon. The 2016 election is truly America's Armageddon—the ultimate and decisive battle to save America, a fight to defeat Hillary Clinton and the forces seeking to flout our constitutional government and replace it with an all-powerful president backed up by an activist judiciary that answers to no one. Already President Obama has moved America far down this path, and a President Clinton will act as his "third term," institutionalizing the excesses of the past eight years. In Armageddon, bestselling author and political strategist Dick Morris provides a winning game plan to take back the White House, and America.
By Paul Bedard 8/2/16
Anti-Hillary Clinton books top the NYT best-seller list
Washington Examiner
For the first time, three of the top four New York Times nonfiction best sellers are anti-Clinton books.
Two new books jumped to the front of the all-important hardcover nonfiction list just this week: https://www.amazon.com/Armageddon-How-Trump-Beat-Hillary-ebook/dp/B01FCLLLDQ?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 (Armageddon,) by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, and https://www.amazon.com/Hillarys-America-Secret-History-Democratic-ebook/dp/B01F1G6FJ2?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 (Hillary's America,) by Dinesh D'Souza.
They join No. 1 https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Character-Discloses-Firsthand-Experience-ebook/dp/B01C3LHS44?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 (Crisis of Character) by former Secret Serviceman Gary J. Byrne which has been on top of the list for four straight weeks.
Only Hamilton: The Revolution, by Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, breaks up the anti-Clinton string of books.
Here is how Amazon describes the books:
— Crisis of Character. In this runaway #1 New York Times bestseller, former secret service officer Gary Byrne, who was posted directly outside President Clinton's oval office, reveals what he observed of Hillary Clinton's character and the culture inside the White House while protecting the First Family in CRISIS OF CHARACTER, the most anticipated book of the 2016 election.
— Hillary's America. Dinesh D'Souza, author of the #1 New York Times bestseller America: Imagine a World Without Her, has a warning: We are on the brink of losing our country forever. After eight years of Obama, four years—or possibly eight years—of Hillary Clinton as president of the United States would so utterly transform America as to make it unrecognizable.
— Armageddon. The 2016 election is truly America's Armageddon—the ultimate and decisive battle to save America, a fight to defeat Hillary Clinton and the forces seeking to flout our constitutional government and replace it with an all-powerful president backed up by an activist judiciary that answers to no one. Already President Obama has moved America far down this path, and a President Clinton will act as his "third term," institutionalizing the excesses of the past eight years. In Armageddon, bestselling author and political strategist Dick Morris provides a winning game plan to take back the White House, and America.
Similar threads
