Archive for the ‘Clinton Foundation’ category

The Clinton Degradation

October 30, 2016

The Clinton Degradation, Power Line, Scott Johnson, October 30, 2016

The prospect of a second Clinton presidency lies before us. I find it almost unbelievable. FBI Director Comey’s announcement of the investigation of newly discovered emails is a timely reminder of what a Clinton presidency holds in store for us simply in terms of lawlessness and scandal, not to mention the horribly destructive public policies she advocates.

In her four-minutes press conference this past Friday evening, Clinton was asked what she would say to a voter who “will be seeing you and hearing what you’re saying, saying I didn’t trust her before. I don’t trust her any more right now….” Clinton responded like a Democratic flack mouthing the obligatory talking point of the moment: “You know, I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the e-mails. I think that’s factored into what people think and now they are choosing a president.’

Yesterday at a rally in Florida, Clinton vowed: “No matter what they throw at us in these last day, we don’t back down.” She’s proud of it! The shamelessness abides.

With just 10 days until Election Day, Hillary’s on the trail in Florida.

Watch live: http://on.msnbc.com/2dY2IkN 

“No matter what they throw at us in these last days, we won’t back down. We won’t be distracted.” —Hillary: http://hrc.io/2fhUgTp 

The presidency of Bill Clinton was a long day’s journey into corruption, perjury, obstruction and national degradation. Thanks to Paula Jones, we even know the shape of the giver.

The revival of the Clinton investigation courtesy of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin is perfect. Thanks to Weiner himself, we know the shape of the giver as well. And the Weiner/Abedin marriage reflects Bill and Hillary’s arrangement in a funhouse mirror.

Through the first Clinton presidency Hillary Clinton served as Bill Clinton’s faithful enabler and attack dog. We nevertheless remain in her debt. Through her work on HillaryCare she produced the first Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 40 years. Some thought it couldn’t be done.

This is not to mention the rank corruption the Clinton family represents. Jack Engelhard captures an aspect of it in the column “How Hillary and Bill became Bonnie and Clyde.” When it comes to corruption, there is no bottom to the Clintons. We patiently wait “to find out what price/You have to pay to get out of/Going through all these things twice.” Bob Dylan said that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke of defining deviancy down. With the Clintons we define degradation down.

Former FBI Asst. Director: FBI Has ‘Intensive, Ongoing’ Investigation into the Clinton Foundation

October 30, 2016

Former FBI Asst. Director: FBI Has ‘Intensive, Ongoing’ Investigation into the Clinton Foundation, PJ Media, Debra Heine, October 30, 2016

(The rain on Hillary’s parade may be turning into a thunderstorm. — DM)

comey3April 5, 2016 file photo, FBI Director James Comey

A former FBI assistant director told CNN Saturday night that the FBI has for months been conducting an “intensive” investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The former G-man, Tom Fuentes, also contradicted CNN’s reporting from earlier this year that said the FBI’s attempts to open a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation were quashed by the DOJ. CNN reported back in August that three field offices wanted to launch an investigation, but DOJ officials had pushed back against opening a case because “the request seemed more political than substantive.” There were conflicting reports at the time, however, which said a joint FBI-U.S. Attorney probe was indeed underway.

Fuentes said, “The FBI has an intensive investigation, ongoing, into the Clinton Foundation.” He added that “the reports that three divisions came in with a request to Washington to open cases, and that they were turned down by the Department of Justice — that’s not true.”

“What was turned down was that they be the originating office,” Fuentes explained. “Headquarters at the FBI made the determination that the investigation would go forward as a comprehensive, unified case, and be coordinated. So that investigation is ongoing and Huma Abedin, and her role in the foundation and possible allegations concerning the activities of the secretary of state, the nature of the foundation and possible pay to play — that’s still being looked at.”

Fuentes continued, saying that “now you have her emails on a computer where the FBI already has a separate case going for Anthony Weiner’s alleged activities with a minor girl — so in a sense it’s almost turned into a one-stop shopping for the FBI. They could have implications affecting three separate investigations on one computer.”

Fuentes said that last week the team looking at Weiner’s computers went to the team that worked on the Clinton email case and showed the emails to them.

“And that team said, ‘this is really significant, we need to take this to the director, maybe we need to take another look at the email case,'” he explained. According to Fuentes,  Comey sent out the letter to the congressional leaders the very next day.

Fuentes seemed to want to stress the importance of the Clinton Foundation investigation: “Intermixed with all of this is still the ongoing foundation investigation … so three separate cases,” he said.

Fuentes told CNN that several “senior officials” in and out of the bureau had been apprising him of what was going on with the investigations.

How Hillary and Bill became Bonnie and Clyde

October 30, 2016

How Hillary and Bill became Bonnie and Clyde, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard

The latest news about the Clintons, that Hillary’s case is being re-opened and that Bill got himself tremendously rich while Hillary was in office, gets to me to thinking about Bonnie and Clyde, the 1967 movie starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway about a real couple that worked brazenly outside the law during the 1930s Depression.

Love this line: “This here’s Miss Bonnie Parker. I’m Clyde Barrow. We rob banks.”

How’s that for a familiar ring as to how the Clintons operate? We’re the Clintons. The biggest schnorrers on the planet.

No wonder the FBI is re-examining the files. James Comey, finally channeling J. Edgar Hoover, dropped this bombshell on Friday.

In a few days, after Comey goes public and spills the beans, The New York Times will call for Hillary to step aside. You heard it here first.

In Hoover’s day Hillary and Bill would have their pictures hanging in the Post Office among the 10 Most Wanted.

Bonnie and Clyde did it for the money. Hillary and Bill do it for the money. Same people.

Except that Bonnie and Clyde, the real ones, were small-time. They’re credited with no more than about a dozen hold-ups, mainly banks and grocery stores.

Small potatoes compared to the Clinton Foundation that one way and another fattened the pockets of Hillary and Bill with dirty millions.

That, plus the emails that keep proving disrespect for most Americans and hostility against the State of Israel from members of the Hillary and Bill Syndicate – a crime family that features associates like Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and her sex-crazed (supposedly estranged) husband Anthony Weiner, who apparently kicked off the FBI dragnet from his sexting madness that fell into the wrong hands.

Imagine this confederacy of scoundrels with the keys to our country, starring Hillary and Bill.

Hollywood won’t need bullet blanks or special effects to show how those bandits used every underhanded trick to get away with highway robbery.

If I ever got around to writing the screenplay I’d have a tough time since there is no real action, no shoot-em-ups or car chases, only slippery dealings that find a way to corrupt everything – the State Department, the Department of Justice, the head of the FBI (until today), and finally the American people.

That’s who’s being robbed and most of us don’t own banks. We’re just trying to make a living and we don’t know how some people keep profiting from the sweat of our brow and have the nerve to present themselves as upstanding public servants when in fact they are gangsters and desperados.

Since it’s beyond me to write the screenplay, I do have the power of the vote, and it won’t go to a couple of drifters who ought to be behind bars.

This voter is putting a badge on Donald Trump. It’s time for a new sheriff in town.

Weekly Update: Clinton Email Crimes?

October 29, 2016

Weekly Update: Clinton Email Crimes? Judicial Watch, October 28, 2016

Clinton State Department IT Official John Bentel Takes the Fifth
U.S. Spends Millions on “Green Bus Corridor” in Mexico, “Bicycle Highway” in Colombia
Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day
Special Report: Clinton’s Pay to Play Scheme

 

Clinton State Department IT Official John Bentel Takes the Fifth

The bureaucrats Hillary Clinton worked with at State still are withholding what they know about her illicit email practices.

You can see that in the deposition transcript of John Bentel, the State Department’s former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat, who was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to respond to our questions. We released the transcript this week.

Mr. Bentel, whose office handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary, answered 87 questions with: “On advice from my legal counsel, I decline to answer the question and I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights.”

We had the same experience with IT political appointee Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton State Department IT official who reportedly provided support for the Clinton email system.

Bentel asserted his Fifth Amendment right in answer to many key questions about issues raised directly by Judge Sullivan. On August 19, 2016, Judge Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose Bentel, citing significant discrepancies in Bentel’s previous statements on the Clinton non-state.gov email system:

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Bentel should be deposed because the record in this case appears to contradict his sworn testimony before the [House Select] Benghazi Committee . . .. Specifically, Mr. Bentel testified that he was not aware that Secretary Clinton’s email account was housed on a private server until media reports in 2015 . . .. However, several emails indicate Mr. Bentel knew about the private server as early as 2009.

Bentel asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in response to all questions about what he knew about Hillary Clinton’s email system and its impact on the Freedom of Information Act.

In ordering Bentel’s deposition, Judge Sullivan also cited a May 2016 Inspector General’s report that found that Mr. Bentel told employees in his office that Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement had been approved by the State Department’s legal staff and also instructed his subordinates not to discuss the Secretary’s email again:

In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further . . . . According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.

Bentel asserted his Fifth Amendment right when asked about this reference to the State Department Inspector General’s report and about his FBI interview.

Mr. Bentel, on advice of the Obama Justice Department and personal counsel, refused to answer any questions about whether Hillary Clinton was paying his legal fees or offered him employment or other financial incentives. Pagliano also declined to say who was paying for his legal representation.

We previously deposed seven former Clinton top aides and current State Department officials, including top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. We also deposed IT official Bryan Pagliano, who asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to testify during the Judicial Watch deposition. And Clinton last week answered our questions under oath regarding her non-government email system.

The depositions come in connection with a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the corrupt patronage job given to Clinton confidante Huma Abedin, who served as deputy chief of staff to former Secretary Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

The fact that yet another State Department official took the Fifth highlights the disturbing implication that criminal acts took place related to the Clinton email system and our FOIA requests.

 

U.S. Spends Millions on “Green Bus Corridor” in Mexico, “Bicycle Highway” in Colombia

A recent survey revealed that Americans most fear government corruption and that the climate doesn’t even make the Top Ten list of worries.

Our Corruption Chronicles blog illustrates why Americans should worry about climate change – because of the government corruption involved in supposedly combatting it:

Surprise, surprise: The U.S. is the first to donate millions of dollars to yet another global warming experiment—run by the famously corrupt United Nations—that aims to forge “climate resilient infrastructure” in third-world countries.

The money will help build a bicycle highway in Colombia and bring electric buses and a “green bus corridor” to Mexico, issues that are unlikely to keep most American taxpayers up at night.

It’s part of an initiative called C40 Cities Finance Facility, launched at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris last year. The global warming powwow in France has already cost American taxpayers a chunk of change, and Judicial Watch made the numbers public over the summer after obtaining records from the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of the Air Force.

The documents offer a detailed breakdown of the cost, but the total expenditure to have President Obama attend the ludicrous Paris shindig was an eye-popping $4,165,068. Judicial Watch had to file a lawsuit to get the information because the administration refused to provide it under the federal public-records law that was enacted to keep government in check.

During the Paris conference, the C40 Cities Finance Facility was launched to provide much-needed cash for a 10-year-old program called C40 that claims to be a “network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change.” The conglomerate specializes in tackling climate change in developing countries by driving urban action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks.

Evidently, it’s come up with some brilliant ideas in the last decade to accomplish its mission but not enough money to implement them. As is the case in many of these global, feel-good initiatives, Uncle Sam has generously opened his checkbook for this important cause. Germany is the other “funding partner” listed along with the U.S.

The first $2 million, doled out this month by the U.S., will fund two urban pilot projects in Latin America that are expected to bring “climate change adaptation and mitigation benefits.” The first project is a 25-kilometer bicycle highway in Bogota, Colombia, that will connect citizens from low, middle and high-income neighborhoods to work, education, and recreation opportunities.

An announcement published by the U.S. government calls the project a “first-of-its-kind” traversing the Colombian city from south to north. The rest of the money will buy a fleet of at least 100 electric buses for Mexico City and install a “green bus corridor” in one of its major thoroughfares. It’s expected to serve an estimated 133,400 Mexicans daily, providing connections to metro lines. This is an important investment for the U.S., a government official says in the announcement, because the impacts of climate change are impeding cities from delivering reliable services, “especially to the poorest.”

Years ago, the Obama administration determined that the poor will feel the brunt of climate change and it has cost American taxpayers monstrous sums. In the last few years the U.S. government has funded a number of programs, both domestic and international, to prepare those communities for the impact.

Back in 2012 the administration asked Congress for a whopping $770 million to help developing countries with climate change initiatives after it had already spent $323 million on a project called Global Climate Change Initiative that helps “meet the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries, including deploying clean energy technologies.”

Earlier this year, a federal audit revealed that a $25 million project to help Guatemala combat the ills of climate change is rife with problems that include data errors and discrepancies. The program is officially known as Climate Nature and Communities in Guatemala (CNCG).

Ideology wrapped in dubious science = taxpayer boondoggle. Is it any wonder that people are tired of corrupt politicians?

 

Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day

As part of our ongoing Election Integrity Project, we plan to have Judicial Watch volunteer poll observers will monitor polling sites in Virginia on Election Day. We have significant concerns about the integrity of the election process there:

  • 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in 8 Virginia counties.  If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in Virginia.
  • A September 2016report by the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the Virginia Voter’s Alliance shows: “In the 8 jurisdictions that provided us with lists of aliens recently removed from their voter rolls, we discovered that 31 non-citizens had cast a total of 186 votes between 2005 and 2015. The most alien votes were cast in 2012 followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term.” There are 133 total Virginia voting jurisdictions, so the number in this report represents a mere fraction of the true total of illegal votes.
  • 19 deceasedindividuals recently re-registered to vote in Virginia.
  • In 2013, the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program (Crosscheck), which provides a lists of voters who are registered in more than one of the 26 states participating in the program, revealed that57,923 Virginia voters were registered to vote in at least one other state. Of course this number would be much higher if the Crosscheck program included every state – including New York, California, and Texas, the most populous states in the country.

Our Election Integrity Project leader, Robert Popper, will train Virginia’s poll watchers.  Bob is a former deputy chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and a veteran poll observer for the Department of Justice.

The Election Integrity project began in February 2012. Since that time Judicial Watch has put several state and county officials on notice when they are in violation of federal laws requiring them to clean up their voter rolls.

We also took action in lawsuits defending photo ID and other commonsense election integrity measures.  And there are also our historic and  successful lawsuits in states like Ohio and Indiana that resulted in cleaner voter rolls and have achieved victories in the United States Supreme Court to stop race-based elections in Hawaii.

Our team also fought in court against the Left (i.e. the Obama administration) that wants to make it easier for non-citizens to register to vote, and harder to remove them once they are illegally registered. And Judicial Watch has conducted election monitoring before, for example in New Hampshire in 2014.

“Judicial Watch election monitors will be neutral and silent observers at select polling places in Virginia,” Popper noted. “We do not oppose or endorse candidates for public office. Our election monitoring in Virginia is wholly independent of any party or candidate.”

Recent polls show that voters are becoming “deeply skeptical” about election integrity. One poll found that 98 percent of people believe that voter fraud occurs: 74 percent believed that “some” or a “great deal” of voter fraud is going on, and 24 percent said hardly any. A poll in The Washington Post found that: “60% of Republicans believe illegal immigrants vote; 43% believe people vote using dead people’s names.”

Virginia residents interested in monitoring a local polling site on Election Day may respond by email to Eric Lee at elee@judicialwatch.org.

The integrity of our government begins with our ability to trust what happens in the voting booth. Incidents of voting fraud now flaring up around the country are an indication that our concern is not misplaced.

 

Special Report: Clinton’s Pay to Play Scheme

Let me encourage you to watch the “One America News Network Special Report: Clinton’s Pay-to-Play Scheme.”

This well-crafted report reveals how the Clintons went from being “broke” to being worth hundreds of millions. In it, you will hear the experts, including representatives from Judicial Watch, disclose how the Clinton Foundation traded government access in exchange for donations. You also will see the evidence of an FBI “cover-up” of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

You can watch it here. It is worth your time.

Clinton’s State Department: A RICO Enterprise

October 29, 2016

Clinton’s State Department: A RICO Enterprise, National Review, Andres C. McCarthy, October 29, 2016

hillary-clinton-corruption-foundation-was-keyClinton is sworn in as secretary of state, February 2, 2009. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)

Whatever the relevance of the new e-mails to the probe of Clinton’s classified-information transgressions and attempt to destroy thousands of emails, these offenses may pale in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s most audacious violations of law: Crimes that should still be under investigation; crimes that will, in fitting Watergate parlance, be a cancer on the presidency if she manages to win on November 8.

********************************

She appears to have used her official powers to do favors for major Clinton Foundation donors.

Felony mishandling of classified information, including our nation’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets; the misappropriation and destruction of tens of thousands of government records — these are serious criminal offenses. To this point, the Justice Department and FBI have found creative ways not to charge Hillary Clinton for them. Whether this will remain the case has yet to be seen. As we go to press, the stunning news has broken that the FBI’s investigation is being reopened. It appears, based on early reports, that in the course of examining communications devices in a separate “sexting” investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, the bureau stumbled on relevant e-mails — no doubt connected to Huma Abedin, Mr. Weiner’s wife and, more significantly, Mrs. Clinton’s closest confidant. According to the New York Times, the FBI has seized at least one electronic device belonging to Ms. Abedin as well. New e-mails, never before reviewed by the FBI, have been recovered.

The news is still emerging, and there will be many questions — particularly if it turns out that the bureau failed to obtain Ms. Abedin’s communications devices earlier in the investigation, a seemingly obvious step. As we await answers, we can only observe that, whatever the FBI has found, it was significant enough for director James Comey to sense the need to notify Congress, despite knowing what a bombshell this would be just days before the presidential election.

One thing, however, is already clear. Whatever the relevance of the new e-mails to the probe of Clinton’s classified-information transgressions and attempt to destroy thousands of emails, these offenses may pale in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s most audacious violations of law: Crimes that should still be under investigation; crimes that will, in fitting Watergate parlance, be a cancer on the presidency if she manages to win on November 8.

Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, operated the Clinton Foundation. Ostensibly a charity, the foundation was a de facto fraud scheme to monetize Hillary’s power as secretary of state (among other aspects of the Clintons’ political influence). The scheme involved (a) the exchange of political favors, access, and influence for millions of dollars in donations; (b) the circumvention of campaign-finance laws that prohibit political donations by foreign sources; (c) a vehicle for Mrs. Clinton to shield her State Department e-mail communications from public and congressional scrutiny while she and her husband exploited the fundraising potential of her position; and (d) a means for Clinton insiders to receive private-sector compensation and explore lucrative employment opportunities while drawing taxpayer-funded government salaries.

While the foundation did perform some charitable work, this camouflaged the fact that contributions were substantially diverted to pay lavish salaries and underwrite luxury travel for Clinton insiders. Contributions skyrocketed to $126 million in 2009, the year Mrs. Clinton arrived at Foggy Bottom. Breathtaking sums were “donated” by high-rollers and foreign governments that had crucial business before the State Department. Along with those staggering donations came a spike in speaking opportunities and fees for Bill Clinton. Of course, disproportionate payments and gifts to a spouse are common ways of bribing public officials — which is why, for example, high-ranking government officeholders must reveal their spouses’ income and other asset information on their financial-disclosure forms.

While there are other egregious transactions, the most notorious corruption episode of Secretary Clinton’s tenure involves the State Department’s approval of a deal that surrendered fully one-fifth of the United States’ uranium-mining capacity to Vladimir Putin’s anti-American thugocracy in Russia.

The story, significant background of which predates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, has been recounted in ground-breaking reporting by the Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer (in his remarkable book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich) and the New York Times. In a nutshell, in 2005, under the guise of addressing the incidence of HIV/AIDS in Kazakhstan (where the disease is nearly nonexistent), Bill Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire pal Frank Giustra to convince the ruling despot, Nursultan Nazarbayev (an infamous torturer and human-rights violator), to grant coveted uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company, Ur-Asia Energy (notwithstanding that it had no background in the highly competitive uranium business). Uranium is a key component of nuclear power, from which the United States derives 20 percent of its total electrical power.

In the months that followed, Giustra gave an astonishing $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged $100 million more. With the Kazakh rights secured, Ur-Asia was able to expand its holdings and attract new investors, like Ian Telfer, who also donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Ur-Asia merged with Uranium One, a South African company, in a $3.5 billion deal — with Telfer becoming Uranium One’s chairman. The new company proceeded to buy up major uranium assets in the United States.

Meanwhile, as tends to happen in dictatorships, Nazarbayev (the Kazakh dictator) turned on the head of his state-controlled uranium agency (Kazatomprom), who was arrested for selling valuable mining rights to foreign entities like Ur-Asia/Uranium One. This was likely done at the urging of Putin, the neighborhood bully whose state-controlled atomic-energy company (Rosatom) was hoping to grab the Kazakh mines — whether by taking them outright or by taking over Uranium One.

The arrest, which happened a few months after Obama took office, sent Uranium One stock into free fall, as investors fretted that the Kazakh mining rights would be lost. Uranium One turned to Secretary Clinton’s State Department for help. As State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks show, Uranium One officials wanted more than a U.S. statement to the media; they pressed for written confirmation that their mining licenses were valid. Secretary Clinton’s State Department leapt into action: An energy officer from the U.S. embassy immediately held meetings with the Kazakh regime. A few days later, it was announced that Russia’s Rosatom had purchased 17 percent of Uranium One. Problem solved.

Except it became a bigger problem when the Russian company sought to acquire a controlling interest in Uranium One. That would mean a takeover not only of the Kazakh mines but of the U.S. uranium assets as well. Such a foreign grab requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a powerful government tribunal that the secretary of state sits on and heavily influences. Though she had historically postured as a hawk against foreign acquisitions of American assets with critical national-security implications, Secretary Clinton approved the Russian takeover of Uranium One. During and right after the big-bucks Russian acquisition, Telfer contributed $1.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Other people with ties to Uranium One appear to have ponied up as much as $5.6 million in donations.

In 2009, the incoming Obama administration had been deeply concerned about the potential for corruption were Hillary to run the State Department while Bill and their family foundation were hauling in huge payments from foreign governments, businesses, and entrepreneurs. For precisely this reason, the White House required Mrs. Clinton to agree in writing that the Clinton Foundation would annually disclose its major donors and seek pre-approval from the White House before the foundation accepted foreign contributions. This agreement was repeated flouted — for example, by concealing the contributions from Telfer. Indeed, the foundation was recently forced to refile its tax returns for the years that Secretary Clinton ran the State Department after media reports that it failed to disclose foreign donations — approximately $20 million worth.

Under RICO, an “enterprise” can be any association of people, informal or formal, illegitimate or legitimate — it could be a Mafia family, an ostensibly charitable foundation, or a department of government. It is a racketeering enterprise if its affairs are conducted through “a pattern of racketeering activity.” A “pattern” means merely two or more violations of federal or state law; these violations constitute “racketeering activity” if they are included among the extensive list of felonies laid out in the statute.

Significantly for present purposes, the listed felonies include bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice. Fraud encompasses both schemes to raise money on misleading pretexts (e.g., a charitable foundation that camouflages illegal political payoffs) and schemes to deprive Americans of their right to the honest services of a public official (e.g., quid pro quo arrangements in which official acts are performed in exchange for money). Both fraud and obstruction can be proved by false statements — whether they are public proclamations (e.g., “I turned over all work-related e-mails to the State Department”) or lies to government officials (e.g., concealing “charitable” donations from foreign sources after promising to disclose them, or claiming not to know that the “(C)” symbol in a government document means it is classified at the confidential level).

The WikiLeaks disclosures of e-mails hacked from Clinton presidential-campaign chairman John Podesta provide mounting confirmation that the Clinton Foundation was orchestrated for the purpose of enriching the Clintons personally and leveraging then-Secretary Clinton’s power to do it. Hillary and her underlings pulled this off by making access to her contingent on Clinton Foundation ties; by having top staff service Clinton Foundation donors and work on Clinton Foundation business; by systematically conducting her e-mail communications outside the government server system; by making false statements to the public, the White House, Congress, the courts, and the FBI; and by destroying thousands of e-mails — despite congressional inquiries and Freedom of Information Act demands — in order to cover up (among other things) the shocking interplay between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

Under federal law, that can amount to running an enterprise by a pattern of fraud, bribery, and obstruction. If so, it is a major crime. Like the major crimes involving the mishandling of classified information and destruction of government files, it cries out for a thorough and credible criminal investigation. More important, wholly apart from whether there is sufficient evidence for criminal convictions, there is overwhelming evidence of a major breach of trust that renders Mrs. Clinton unfit for any public office, let along the nation’s highest public office.

Newt Gingrich Full Interview with Sean Hannity (10/28/2016)

October 29, 2016

Newt Gingrich Full Interview with Sean Hannity (10/28/2016), Fox News via YouTube

(It’s about the re-opened FBI “investigation” of the Clinton e-mails and unsecured server. — DM)

Clinton Corruption, Two Articles

October 27, 2016

Clinton Corruption, Two Articles, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, October 26, 2016

No one who has been paying attention doubts that the Clinton Foundation is a corrupt enterprise or that Hillary Clinton is a party to the corruption. But two new articles, if read in tandem, drive home the point.

The first article is from the Washington Post, no less. It’s called “Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income.”

The memo in question was written by the infamous Doug Band, at that time a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. In his memo, say Post writers Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Band detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.”

Helderman and Hamburger continue:

The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.

Bill Clinton is the focus of the Post’s article. Hillary is in the background. Her complicity is perhaps implied, but not documented.

The second article, by Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller, gives Hillary her due. It explains the role she played as Secretary of State in “Bill Clinton, Inc.” — an enterprise that should be called “Bill and Hillary Clinton, Inc.”

Ross bases his reporting on documents obtained by Citizens United. The documents show how decisions about access to Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State were based, at least in part, on status as a Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) donor.

A Dec. 4, 2012 email shows that Paul McElearney, CGI’s head of member development, emailed Abedin asking if he could meet with Hillary Clinton during her trip to Ireland two days later. Abedin said that she could accommodate McElearney. He then asked if four other people could also meet Clinton.

Before responding, Abedin asked Band and two of his associates: “Are these legit cgi [Clinton Global Initiative] people?” She added: “Everyone is asking to see [Secretary Clinton.”

Clearly, then, contributing to the Clinton Global Initiative was a factor in determining who, among the many who were asking to see Hillary, would be given access.

Putting the two articles together, we see (again) that Bill Clinton’s man Doug Band obtained not just charitable contributions but also personal income and benefits for the Clintons and that those who contributed to “Bill and Hillary Clinton, Inc.” had preferred status when they sought access to Secretary Clinton.

In fact, one of the corporations mentioned by the Post, Dow Chemical, features in another email cited by Ross in the Daily Caller story. According to Ross, an email obtained by Citizens United shows that in April 2011, Band asked Abedin to invite Diego Donoso, an executive with Dow Chemical’s offices in Japan, to a diplomatic session between Hillary Clinton and Naoto Kan, Japan’s prime minister at the time.

Dow wasn’t just a donor to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. It was also a client of Band’s consulting firm, Teneo.

It isn’t clear whether Donoso attended the diplomatic session. It is clear that his contributions to “Bill and Hillary Clinton, Inc.” counted in his favor with Abedin (and therefore Hillary).

According to the Post, Dow’s massive payments to Teneo led to an investigation by an internal Dow fraud investigator. He concluded: “It appears Dow is paying Teneo for connections with Clinton.”

The investigator was right. And, taken together, the reporting of the Post and the Daily Caller shows that Dow was also paying Bill Clinton for connections, in the form of better access at a minimum, with Hillary.

Clinton Foundation Employed Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official

October 22, 2016

Clinton Foundation Employed Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, October 22, 2016

It won’t be new to have a Muslim Brotherhood fan in the Oval Office; we’ve had one for the past eight years. Fortunately, Team Obama didn’t have its way in Egypt and so the Muslim Brotherhood lost power.

It hasn’t gone away, however, and we should expect Hillary Clinton once again to back this anti-American, Israel-hating terrorist outfit.

********************

Gehad El-Haddad, the now-imprisoned former spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice Party,” was paid by the Clinton Foundation even as he promoted the Brotherhood’s interests as ab adviser to Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi. So reports Patrick Poole at PJ Media.

Poole calls Gehad “the Baghdad Bob of the Arab Spring.” According to Poole, while serving Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government, Gehad incited violence, justified the torture of protesters, recycled fake news stories, and staged fake scenes of confrontation during the 2013 Rabaa protests.

Poole relies in part on Gehad’s Linkedin page, in which he refers to himself as “Senior Adviser & Media Spokesperson at Muslim Brotherhood.” For “Current” he states:

Muslim Brotherhood, Renaissance Project, Freedom and Justice Party.

For “Previous” he states:

William J. Clinton Foundation, Qabila, Industrial Modernization Center.

Further down the page, where he describes his time with the Clinton Foundation, he states that he worked for the Foundation from August 2007 – August 2012. Morsi came to power in the last month or two of this period.

Before Morsi came to power, Gehad served as his campaign spokesman. He was on the Clinton Foundation’s payroll throughout this time and during a longer period during which, says Poole, he held various posts with the Brotherhood. Thus, as Poole puts it, “the Clinton Foundation subsidized one of the senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood officials in his rapid rise to power.”

Once Morsi came to power, Gehad became an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood’s attacks on the judiciary and the police. Poole presents some of Gehad’s apologist tweets.

Should we be surprised that the Clintons subsidized a Muslim Brotherhood operative? Not really.

As Andy McCarthy has pointed out, during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State:

[T]he United States. . .aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways. To name just a few (the list is by no means exhaustive): Our government reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Brotherhood; funded Hamas; continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections; dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas; hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States; issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt. . . .

Clinton’s closest confidante is Huma Abedin. The Abedin family has connections with the Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin herself may or may not. But her contempt for American Jews who support Israel is now a matter of record.

It won’t be new to have a Muslim Brotherhood fan in the Oval Office; we’ve had one for the past eight years. Fortunately, Team Obama didn’t have its way in Egypt and so the Muslim Brotherhood lost power.

It hasn’t gone away, however, and we should expect Hillary Clinton once again to back this anti-American, Israel-hating terrorist outfit.

Wikileaks: Top Clinton Aides Details “Expensive Gifts” and Unethical Deals By Clintons Through Their Foundation

October 21, 2016

Wikileaks: Top Clinton Aides Details “Expensive Gifts” and Unethical Deals By Clintons Through Their Foundation, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley,October 21, 2016

hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghazi-e1477072056301
bill_clinton_by_gage_skidmore-e1477072101940

Wikileaks has issued new and troubling emails from its hacking of Democratic accounts. Top Clinton aide Doug Band sent emails that raised objections to the use of the Foundation by Bill Clinton that raised troubling conflicts of interest. He specifically mentions the giving of “expensive gifts” and other conduct from sponsors. At the same time, top Hillary Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, is found complaining about a “mess” created by Hillary Clinton in securing a massive contribution from the King of Morocco of $12 million in exchange for a meeting with her as part of an event for the Clinton Global Initiative May 2015.


The Bond disclosure concerns the Clinton Global Initiative and a new business started by top Clinton aide Doug Band called Teneo Holdings. Both Band and Clinton’s held dual positions with Teneo and CGI. Bond wrote a November 17th email to John Podesta, Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and long-time Clinton confidant. He objected to Pedestal that “I signed a conflict of interest policy as a board member of cgi . . . Oddly, [Bill Clinton] does not have to sign such a document even though he is personally paid by 3 cgi sponsors, gets many expensive gifts from them, some that are at home etc. . . I could add 500 different examples of things like this.” Bond was on the Clinton Foundation payroll through 2011, but, in June 2011, he and co-founder Declan Kelly, a former economic envoy for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, started Teneo in June 2011. They then made Bill Clinton a paid adviser. Chelsea Clinton was then appointed to the CGI board. Teneo then accepted money from groups like MF Global, a controversial brokerage firm that reportedly lost $600 million of investors’ money and had business deals that could be benefited by an association with the Secretary of State.

At the time of the emails, the Clinton staff were worried that there were questions being asked between CGI and Teneo. Band comes across as defensive and accusatory. He indicated that he knew of far worse conflicts by Bill Clinton and demanded “How then do we go through an exercise like this and [Bill Clinton] doesn’t as he is far more conflicted every single day in what he does?” Band later raised a Hillary Clinton with even worse “issues.”

In the meantime, Abedin (who is generally viewed as Hillary Clinton’s closest aide) authored a startling email that suggested a type of quid pro quo by Hillary Clinton in a foundation trade-off with Morocco for $12 million commitment to meet with the King of Morocco. The critical memo came in January 2015 with two top advisers Podesta and Robby Mook. It appeared that after cutting the deal for the money, Clinton had gotten cold feet due to the election. Abedin wrote that “this was HRC’s idea” and “she created this mess and she knows it.” It was decided that Hillary Clinton who go to campaign in Nevada and California while they had Bill and Chelsea meet with the Moroccans. Morocco at the time was under great pressure for what the U.S. government denounced as “arbitrary arrests and corruption.”

The last presidential debate with moderator Chris Wallace was the first to seriously probe allegations of a “pay to play” scheme associated with the Foundation. Clinton did not respond directly to the allegations but these emails are likely to magnify the concerns in the final weeks of the campaign.

Patrick Kennedy, Hillary Clinton’s Fixer

October 19, 2016

Patrick Kennedy, Hillary Clinton’s Fixer, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, October 19, 2016

Patrick Kennedy, the State Department official who tried to get the FBI to change email classifications in exchange for helping the FBI meet its staffing needs in Bagdhad, is what they used to call a “fixer.” A fixer is not quite the same thing as a henchman. Cheryl Mills played that role at the Clinton State Department.

Kennedy has been a fixer in both Democratic and Republican administrations. But until Hilary Clinton came to Foggy Bottom, there’s no evidence that Kennedy needed to fix things corruptly.

The Clintons corrupt everything they touch, so it’s not surprising that as Hillary’s State Department fixer, Kennedy went to corrupt lengths. In the case of the FBI negotiations, the Bureau either needed extra personnel in Baghdad or it didn’t. If it didn’t, Kennedy should not have offered to help the FBI. If it did, he should have helped the FBI unconditionally.

Baghdad is not some way station; it is at the center of American foreign policy and national security concerns. For Kennedy to condition his assistance in obtaining extra U.S. personnel in that hot-spot on a favor for a presidential candidate is deplorable. And, as argued below, it’s clear that he did this in concert with Hillary Clinton.

The FBI negotiation is just one example of Kennedy trying to fix things for Clinton. Steve Hayes reminds us of another.

It was Kennedy who helped Cheryl Mills select Clinton-friendly members and staff for the State Department’s Administrative Review Board (ARB). Clinton would later use the findings of the ARB as the key component of her defense on Benghazi. However, as Hayes says, the in-house State Department investigation of those attacks was hardly independent:

The chairmen acknowledged under congressional questioning that they had advised Clinton and her team about potentially problematic witnesses before congressional hearings, provided an advanced copy of their final report to several top Clinton staffers, allowed [Cheryl] Mills to edit the report, and even briefed Clinton for two hours on their findings before they were made public.

In this instance, Kennedy wasn’t just fixing things for Hillary, he was fixing them for himself. Kennedy was at fault for the poor security at Benghazi. Gregory Hicks, the State Department’s charge d’affaires in Libya, testified before Congress that “given the decision-making that Under Secretary Pat Kennedy was making with respect to Embassy Tripoli and Consulate Benghazi operations, he has to bear some responsibility” for the Benghazi terror attack.

As Clinton’s fixer, it was only natural that Kennedy assist the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Examiner reports that Kennedy was involved in pushing plans for a new $177.9 million embassy in Norway in 2011 over the apparent objections of diplomatic officials in Oslo. Norway’s government has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

“Yes” to $177.9 million for an diplomatic officials didn’t want; “no” (absent help for the Clinton campaign) to two FBI agents in Baghdad. And “no” to beefed up security in Benghazi.

Kennedy also helped fix it so that Brian Pagliano, the man in charge of Hillary’s home-brew email server, got a job at the State Department. A State Department official told the FBI:

Around the time of Clinton’s onboard transition, Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management, suggested [redacted] interview Brian Pagliano, who served on Clinton’s. . .presidential campaign. [Redacted] and [Redacted] interviewed Pagliano, who had an MBA form the University of Maryland. After interviewing Pagliano [Redacted] agreed he would be a good fit for [Redacted] team. Pagliano was subsequently hired on to DoS in a Schedule C position, and was tasked with assisting mainly with cost recovery planning and researching DoS technical enhancement opportunities.

(Emphasis added)

Kennedy claims he had no knowledge that Clinton was using a private email server. However, he exchanged dozens of emails with Secretary Clinton’s private email address. In fact, he emailed Clinton at two private addresses: HDR22@clintonemail.com andhr15@att.blackberry.net.

Kennedy’s official job at the State Department isn’t fixer, it is Undersecretary of State for Management. As such, he oversees the department’s compliance with federal records laws. Clinton’s use of a private email server undermined the department’s ability to comply with federal records laws. Kennedy knew from his own correspondence with Clinton that she was using private email for State Department business.

All of this is clear. The remaining question is whether Kennedy sought to have the FBI help Clinton’s position in the email scandal on his own or, instead, at the behest of Clinton.

It seems unlikely that Kennedy would do this something this risky — the FBI could have gone public immediately with Kennedy’s quid pro quo offer — without sign off from the party he was serving. However, we need not speculate. The timing of events demonstrates Clinton’s involvement in Kennedy’s efforts.

As John pointed out, quoting FBI memos, prior to the end of the conversation between Kennedy and the key FBI man on the classification issue, “KENNEDY asked whether the FBI or STATE would conduct the public statements on the matter.” The FBI man “advised KENNEDY that the FBI would not comment publicly on the matter.”

Safe in the knowledge (dutifully provided by Kennedy) that the FBI would not be commenting, Hillary Clinton promptly met the press, a rare event, “to deny having sent classified emails on her private email server.”

Thus, when Kennedy tried to influence the FBI, via a quid pro quo, to help the Clinton campaign, he was no rogue fixer. He was a fixer working closely with Hillary Clinton, as he had in the past.

As President, Bill Clinton needed not just an ordinary fixer but a “Secretary of Sh*t” (John Podesta filled that job for a time). As President, Hillary Clinton will need at least one. Patrick Kennedy is perfect for the role.