Archive for the ‘Corruption’ category

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together

August 1, 2016

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together, BreitbartMatthew Boyle, August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.

Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.

Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.

But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.

Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.

“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.

The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.

The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.

Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.

“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”

“Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!”

Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.

Schoffstall’s piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton’s campaign this year.

Khan’s connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.

“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber,” Polantz wrote. “Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues.”

Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.

“Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”

But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash. 

The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.

“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”

Breitbart News’ Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz’s firm—which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—is also connected to the email scandal.

“Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.

For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.

“Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote. “The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use.”

If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.

Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.”

“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the “flaws” with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:

– Investments can be spent before business plans are approved. 

– Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.  

– Jobs created are not “direct” or verifiable jobs but rather are “indirect” and based on estimates and economic modeling.

– Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.

– Investment funds are not adequately vetted. 

– Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.

– The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.

– There’s no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.

– Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.

– Regional centers don’t have to certify that they comply with securities laws.  

– There’s no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.

– There’s no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.

– There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.

– Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas.

– Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.

– Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected. 

– Visas are not properly scrutinized. 

– Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.

– Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.

– The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.

– There’s no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.

That’s not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already. In fact, the program—according to Grassley—was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the United States.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”

Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary Clinton’s coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography. 

Hillary ‘Really Proud’ of Clinton Foundation — but Hid It Completely from DNC

August 1, 2016

Hillary ‘Really Proud’ of Clinton Foundation — but Hid It Completely from DNC, BreitbartEzra Dulis, July 31, 2016

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that she is “really proud” of her family’s charity the Clinton Foundation — after spending the past week hiding its existence from viewers of the Democratic National Convention.

The glaring contradiction prompted a video comparison, which you can watch above.

Wallace, in an exclusive sit-down interview, asked Clinton about allegations first made in Clinton Cash, the book and now film/graphic novel, that Clinton used the multi-billion-dollar charity for international “pay-to-play” deals while she served as Secretary of State. Author and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer says that Clinton Foundation donors were on the receiving end of corrupt deals approved by Hillary’s State Department — including the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia and a rare, lucrative mining permit in Haiti.

Clinton retorted that she is “really proud of the Clinton Foundation,” yet not a single speaker at the DNC last week — not even Bill or Chelsea Clinton — mentioned the Foundation or its spinoffs such as the Clinton Global Initiative. A dramatic documentary clip on Hillary’s record of service, narrated by acclaimed actor Morgan Freeman, failed to mention the Clinton Foundation or its work around the world. The omission left the clip feeling oddly scant, as only two non-politicians appeared on camera with stories to praise Clinton’s record from over 40 years in political life.

This week, news broke that the IRS is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Earlier this month, FBI Director James Comey would not confirm or deny whether the bureau is investigating the Foundation during congressional testimony. Just days later, The Globe and Mail reported that “The Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation is spending an astounding 78 percent of the money it raises on administrative costs.”

Read the transcript of Wallace and Clinton’s exchange:

WALLACE:  Let’s talk about the Clinton Foundation and allegations of pay-to-play, the argument, the allegation that foreign companies and foreign countries either donated big money to the foundation, or paid your husband for big money for speeches in order to influence your work as secretary of state.  In the first 12 years after he left the White House, President Clinton made 13 speeches for which he got $500,000 or more.  Eleven of those 13 were while you were secretary of state, and they were all paid for by foreign interests.

Are we to believe that’s just a coincidence?

CLINTON:  Well, there’s no truth to any of these allegations.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE:  Well, I mean, it is true that they gave — that they did make these speeches.  They are all (ph) by foreign interests, and he was getting much bigger speaking fees.

CLINTON:  He got — he gave speeches as soon as he left the White House all the way up until the last year, and he spoke all over the world, as well as throughout America, to all kinds of groups.

But let’s get to the nut of your question.  I’m really proud of the Clinton Foundation.  I am proud of the work that it does.  Thanks to the Clinton Foundation, 9 million more people in our world have access to HIV/AIDS drugs because they negotiated contracts that made them affordable.

And there is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.  So, people can say that, but I’m proud of our philanthropic work, our personal/family philanthropic work, the work of the Clinton Foundation.

I’d like to see Donald Trump’s tax returns to find out how much philanthropy he’s ever done.

Judge Jeanine Pirro 7/30/16 | Hillary’s America Documentary, RNC vs DNC, Donald Trump Economics

July 31, 2016

Judge Jeanine Pirro 7/30/16 | Hillary’s America Documentary, RNC vs DNC, Donald Trump Economics, Fox News via YouTube, July 30, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVw5RKDmqp8

DNC Leaks Show Hillary Clinton’s Rigged Game

July 25, 2016

DNC Leaks Show Hillary Clinton’s Rigged Game, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 25, 2016

trifecta

Sergeant Schultz is a patsy. Another disposable Clintonite in a long line of them from Susan McDougal, who spent 18 months in jail for covering for the Clintons before getting a presidential pardon from Bill, to Sandy Berger, who ducked in to stuff some classified documents about Bill’s terror policies into his socks and got 100 hours of community service for building his own “sock server” full of classified documents. If Hillary wins, then Debbie will become Chief of Staff Schultz, Defense Secretary Schultz or, since we already know she’s willing to do anything for Hillary, Attorney General Schultz.

Forcing Debbie Wasserman Schultz out accomplishes nothing. The Clintons have built their careers on being able to buy the temporary allegiances of political hacks like her with other people’s money. Until they lose access to that money, the system will continue to be rigged for Hillary by Debbie and Sandy and Maggie and Cheryl and anyone else looking forward to a lifetime sinecure from Clintonworld.

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

Trump accused Hillary Clinton of being the beneficiary of a rigged system. Then the DNC leaks proved it by showing just how aggressively the Democratic National Committee was working to push Hillary and suppress any of her rivals to the crown. Not only was the process rigged with the superdelegates, but the DNC functioned like an arm of the Clinton campaign.

The Sanders campaign demanded someone’s head. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ frizzy scalp was delivered to Bernie’s door. But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose last original idea was trying to score a block of Hamilton tickets from an RNC official, certainly didn’t do any of this on her own.

Hillary Clinton lost her last bid for the White House inside her own party. And she wasn’t about to allow that to happen twice. So the Clintons just took over the DNC. They bought it and it sold out to them.

Sergeant Schultz is a patsy. Another disposable Clintonite in a long line of them from Susan McDougal, who spent 18 months in jail for covering for the Clintons before getting a presidential pardon from Bill, to Sandy Berger, who ducked in to stuff some classified documents about Bill’s terror policies into his socks and got 100 hours of community service for building his own “sock server” full of classified documents. If Hillary wins, then Debbie will become Chief of Staff Schultz, Defense Secretary Schultz or, since we already know she’s willing to do anything for Hillary, Attorney General Schultz.

Top DNC officials targeted Bernie Sanders, raising questions about his religion, testing anti-Bernie narratives, slamming him and cheerleading their candidate. They vetted media pieces about Hillary, suppressed material featuring Bernie Sanders and spied on the Sanders campaign from the inside.

The Democratic National Committee functioned like an arm of the Clinton campaign. The primaries were a fiction whose only purpose and only possible outcome was the coronation of Queen Hillary.

Wiser candidates knew that and stayed away. Those who did show up were really applying to be her second banana, a spot that none of them managed to pick up despite their refusal to hit her hard on any of her glaringly ultraviolet vulnerabilities. Only Bernie Sanders proved to be as deluded in his ambitions as he was in his politics. Only he thought that he could actually win a rigged race against Hillary.

The DNC taught him better. Eventually. It took lawsuits, voter fraud and every dirty trick in the book.

In pursuit of her ambitions, Hillary has been willing to dismantle the superdelegate system for the future, pulling out the chair from future establishment candidates, just so she can get hers. This move, like so many others, demonstrated that there is no Democratic Party. Just the Hillary Party.

The game hasn’t just been rigged. It’s been fixed from the top down.

But that’s the way it always was for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton has never competed in an honest election. And she has never won an election in which an actual capable opponent showed up. Despite the best efforts of the DNC, she struggled against a senile socialist with no math skills who repeated the same few lines no matter what the topic was.

Imagine if she had gone up against Cory Booker or Joe Biden. Hillary would have lost and badly.

That is why Hillary commands an army of minions like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Clintonworld is a vast enterprise that encompasses non-profit groups and more traditional political organizations which exist solely to smooth her path to the White House. The Clintons are their own country with their own complicated internal government, intelligence agencies, phantom air force, huge budgets and ties to foreign nations.

After Benghazi, it was Clintonites like Cheryl Mills who jumped into action to cover up the truth. Mills had also showed up to purge State Department files after Benghazi, not to mention after numerous other Clinton scandals. After Vince Foster’s suicide, Maggie Williams, Hillary’s chief of staff, removed her documents from his office. Williams went on to manage Hillary’s failed presidential campaign and these days she has a gig at the Clinton Foundation.

That is the secret of how the Clintons can attract so many people to lie, cheat and steal for them. It’s not personal loyalty. Unlike her husband, Hillary Clinton has no charisma. Instead it’s careerism.

The Clintons haven’t just been funneling money for themselves. They built a vast network that would make crime pay. Even if Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to drop out of politics, she’ll have a cushy spot waiting for her in some obscure crevice of the Clinton Foundation funded by arms dealers, Persian Gulf sheikhs and even worse fellows who make them look like princes. Bernie had nothing like it to offer.

Forcing Debbie Wasserman Schultz out accomplishes nothing. The Clintons have built their careers on being able to buy the temporary allegiances of political hacks like her with other people’s money. Until they lose access to that money, the system will continue to be rigged for Hillary by Debbie and Sandy and Maggie and Cheryl and anyone else looking forward to a lifetime sinecure from Clintonworld.

It’s that dirty and that simple.

The Clintons are the source of the corruption. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ only crime was getting caught. But Clintonworld takes care of its own. Just ask Susan McDougal or Sandy Berger.

The Clintons have become a political dynasty, a royal family crossed with organized crime, a network of secretive institutions trading promises for power and money for loyalty. The corruption of the DNC is neither surprising nor remarkable. Not when the Clintons have corrupted everything else they ever touched from their state to their party to their country.

It’s not just that the Clintons are corrupt. Politics breeds corruption. It’s that their ambition and sense of entitlement have no limitations. There is nothing that they will not do to win. And they think big.

If they can’t win an election, they rig it. If their party doesn’t like them, they take over the party.

But for all the grandiose plans, the Clintons are petty. The DNC leaks show us that Clinton power is built on putting a lot of corrupt dirty little people into places where they can serve their ambitions. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a ridiculous character, is exactly the type of political hack that the Clintons love. Egotistical, incompetent, vain, absurd, amoral and willing to do anything and everything to get ahead. The typical Clintonite is convinced that their talents are overlooked and resentful of everyone else.

The Clintons have a peculiar talent for finding these sorts of people and seeding them throughout government. And this tidal wave of political hacks, thousands of Schultz’, follows in their wake wherever they go. And the damage they do continues on even long after the Clintons have moved on.

This army of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ will accompany the Clintons into the halls of government if they win. They will do anything for them in the hopes of a lucrative government job and then a consultancy gig if the Clintons win.

But if the Clintons lose, if the promise of their political dynasty ends, then they will lose everything.

The Real Implications of Deborah Wasserman Schultz’s Resignation

July 25, 2016

The Real Implications of Deborah Wasserman Schultz’s Resignation, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, July 24, 2016

deb computer

The most fascinating aspect of the controversy over the Democratic National Committee’s hacked emails that has resulted in Deborah Wasserman Schultz’s resignation—a quasi firing—is that everything was fine with Wasserman-Schultz until… she got caught.

While some Democrats, particularly Bernie supporters, were annoyed with Debbie before” Guccifer 2.0″ exposed the DNC emails, those same emails demonstrating favoritism to Hillary Rodham Clinton by the supposedly even-handed committee were readily available to a whole stream of people who never said word one.

It would be interesting to compile an annotated list of who they are, who was on the various rounds. Do they include those, like David Axelrod, who suddenly and eagerly called for Wasserman Schultz to bow out? I’d bet on some surprises. Whatever the case, were I a Sanders supporter, which I am not, I would obviously be furious.

It is quite possible that Bernie Sanders would currently be the Democratic Party nominee for president were it not for this conspiracy against him. We will never know. He came remarkably close even while enduring it. (I would imagine if a conspiracy surfaces on email, out of digital form in cloakroom whispers, it is even more pervasive.)

What is astonishing is that Sanders himself has turned into a eunuch, rolling over for this on the morning shows by making light of the situation. One can only wonder what his supporters think now that their hero is a sellout. (Perhaps they will learn the value of the missing Eleventh Commandment—”Never trust your leaders.”)

That the DNC server was so easily hacked is also quite astonishing since the break-in occurred after the Hillary Clinton email server story became front-page news. Don’t these people learn anything?

I am far from an expert in cybersecurity, but having run an online media company for seven years, I forced myself to learn enough to see the obvious—that those who hacked into the DNC server and other email accounts such as Sidney Blumenthal’s to Hillary Clinton, as was done by the original Guccifer, were simply clever amateurs, patient enough to guess their way in with simple-minded passwords.  For the highly-trained sophisticated intelligence services of China, Russia, Germany, Israel, the UK, France, Pakistan and Iran (to name just a few) with access to super computers, such break-ins would be so routine they might be done in ten minutes. Our own NSA might have done in it three minutes. Maybe they did.

How did this outright cyber stupidity on the part of the DNC and Clinton come to pass? Two words: arrogance and corruption. They work together brilliantly.

How could you possibly trust these people to manage the war against radical Islam where cybersecurity is increasingly paramount? ISIS has certainly mastered YouTube. Who knows what else they can do?  Sooner or later, they or their progeny will know plenty.

How the media plays this story will be revelatory. They treated Melania Trump’s cribbing a few lines of the most banal boilerplate from a Michelle Obama speech as a catastrophe that could upend a campaign.  This is a hydrogen bomb by comparison. The governing committee of one of our two principal political parties attempted to steal an election—and was supremely incompetent in the process!

If the media does not meet its responsibility with this story and pursue it to the end, they will be exposing the bias we all know to such a degree they are endangering their own survival. The public, as Trump’s candidacy indicates, not to mention the polls, already despises the media. That same media may seem invincible, but they are vulnerable in their bottom line. Everybody is.

Still no confidence in the MSM? If you’re interested in searching the DNC email database yourself, you can do so here.

AND THIS UPDATE:  People say they’re confused by the latest revelation that after having “resigned” from the DNC, Wasserman Schutlz has just been hired by Hillary’s campaign. I’m not. Washerman Schultz knows a great deal. Clinton would never want her angry and running off the reservation talking to people. As the man said, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”

MOST AMUSING BS IN THE STORY SO FAR:  Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook claiming that the email leak was a Russian plot to get Donald Trump elected. WikiLeaks made fun of that one quickly enough. It’s sort of the equivalent of Hillary blaming her husband’s adulteries on “the great rightwing conspiracy.” It’s such a boldfaced lie you have to admire the person for having the guts to tell it. I rather doubt Putin is shivering in his boots over a President Hillary “Reset Button” Clinton.

‘Clinton Cash’ Global Premiere Scores 170,000 Views in 3 Hours – Bernie Sanders Supporters Promote

July 24, 2016

‘Clinton Cash’ Global Premiere Scores 170,000 Views in 3 Hours – Bernie Sanders Supporters Promote, BreitbartJerome Hudson, July 24, 2016

(The full video is also available at Warsclerotic. The Breitbart article includes lots of social media posts, some of which are not about Clinton Cash. However, I have deleted most of the advertisements.– DM)

clinton cash

In just three hours, more than 170,000 viewers tuned in to watch the global premiere of Clinton Cash, the motion picture adaptation of the New York Times best-selling book Clinton Cash, authored by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer.

The film, directed by M.A. Taylor and produced by Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon, was promoted — and praised — by both sides of the political stratum. Veterans for Bernie Sanders, a group with over 50,000 likes, took to its Facebook page to encouraged its followers to watch and share the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3747&v=7LYRUOd_QoM

Reaction to the Clinton Cash movie poured in swiftly. Viewers from multiple social media platforms praised the film and urged their followers to watch it.

Many Facebook users expressed a mixture of fury and disbelief at the facts laid out in the 105-minute film.

Here’s what committed Sanders supporters had to say:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FVets4US%2Fvideos%2F648178325332869%2F%3Fcomment_id%3D648234601993908&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FVets4US%2Fvideos%2F648178325332869%2F%3Fcomment_id%3D648204871996881&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FVets4US%2Fvideos%2F648178325332869%2F%3Fcomment_id%3D648371808646854&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FVets4US%2Fvideos%2F648178325332869%2F%3Fcomment_id%3D648255431991825&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FVets4US%2Fvideos%2F648178325332869%2F%3Fcomment_id%3D648205508663484&include_parent=false

Clinton Cash feature documentary” was trending on Facebook at the time of publication as reaction to the film continued to accelerate on the platform on Saturday.

One commenter said Clinton Cash “shows the cesspool of corruption that the Clinton Foundation is.”

Another commenter fumed, “Dear God. I thought I was done being shocked by the Clinton darkness. Thank you. Keep speaking out. Please.”

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FClintonCashFilm%2Fphotos%2Fa.1072794852767664.1073741831.1033572806689869%2F1075041699209646%2F%3Ftype%3D3%26comment_id%3D1075045752542574&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D1595716547394032%26id%3D1495303060768715%26comment_id%3D1595732240725796&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D1595716547394032%26id%3D1495303060768715%26comment_id%3D1595737697391917&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D1595716547394032%26id%3D1495303060768715%26comment_id%3D1595746684057685&include_parent=false

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comment_embed.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D1595716547394032%26id%3D1495303060768715%26comment_id%3D1595750554057298&include_parent=false

After its global premiere, reaction to Clinton Cash had skyrocketed on Twitter.

140 characters is not enough to describe the emotions I felt watching this movie. It’s going to haunt me for a long time

Clinton Cash movie on youtube lays out theft by Clintons, who we trusted to act for America. Now we need to make it right. Put em away.

movie,if 10% is true,is utterly shocking and heartbreaking our leaders could be so morally bankrupt

How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians

July 18, 2016

How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians, National Review, Dinesh D’Souza, July 18, 2016

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article is excerpted from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.”

Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again — this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000 people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people destitute.

The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to rebuild Haiti. Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States.

Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels, cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly needy. Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt. Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments. Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to devastate the island nation.

The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say they believed in the message of “hope and change.” With his customary overstatement, Bill told the media, “Wouldn’t it be great if they become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.”

I don’t blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the world’s greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it disappeared along the way.

Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world.

The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.

For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for.

Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable.

The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons.

Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.” InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks.

InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks.

The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan.

Several Clinton cronies showed up with Bill to a 2011 Housing Expo that cost more than $2 million to stage. Bill Clinton said it would be a model for the construction of thousands of homes in Haiti. In reality, no homes have been built. A few dozen model units were constructed but even they have not been sold. Rather, they are now abandoned and have been taken over by squatters.

THE SCHOOLS THEY NEVER BUILT

USAID contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince went to a Washington-based company named CHF International. The company’s CEO David Weiss, a campaign contributor to Hillary in 2008, was deputy U.S. trade representative for North American Affairs during the Clinton administration. The corporate secretary of the board, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, served in a number of posts in the Clinton administration, including assistant secretary of commerce.The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, “built” is a term with a very loose interpretation. For example, the newspaper located a school featured in the Clinton Foundation annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” In reality, “The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-building activity.”

USAID contracts also went to consulting firms such as New York–based Dalberg Global Development Advisors, which received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians. This company is an active participant and financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative. A later review by USAID’s inspector general found that Dalberg did a terrible job, naming uninhabitable mountains with steep ravines as possible sites for Haitian rebuilding.

Foreign governments and foreign companies got Haitian deals in exchange for bankrolling the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation lists the Brazilian construction firm OAS and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) as donors that have given it between $1 billion and $5 billion.

The IDB receives funding from the State Department, and some of this funding was diverted to OAS for Haitian road-building contracts. Yet an IDB auditor, Mariela Antiga, complained that the contracts were padded with “excessive costs” to build roads “no one needed.” Antiga also alleged that IDB funds were going to a construction project on private land owned by former Haitian president Rene Preval — a Clinton buddy — and several of his cronies. For her efforts to expose corruption, Antiga was promptly instructed by the IDB to pack her bags and leave Haiti.

In 2011, the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal with Digicel, a cell-phone-service provider seeking to gain access to the Haitian market. The Clintons arranged to have Digicel receive millions in U.S. taxpayer money to provide mobile phones. The USAID Food for Peace program, which the State Department administered through Hillary aide Cheryl Mills, distributed Digicel phones free to Haitians.

Digicel didn’t just make money off the U.S. taxpayer; it also made money off the Haitians. When Haitians used the phones, either to make calls or transfer money, they paid Digicel for the service. Haitians using Digicel’s phones also became automatically enrolled in Digicel’s mobile program. By 2012, Digicel had taken over three-quarters of the cell-phone market in Haiti. Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons. O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011.

Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons. O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011.

Coincidentally the United States government paid Digicel $45 million to open a hotel in Port-au-Prince. Now perhaps it could be argued that Haitians could use a high-priced hotel to attract foreign investors and provide jobs for locals. Thus far, however, this particular hotel seems to employ only a few dozen locals, which hardly justifies the sizable investment that went into building it. Moreover, there are virtually no foreign investors; the rooms are mostly unoccupied; the ones that are taken seem mainly for the benefit of Digicel’s visiting teams.

In addition, the Clintons got their cronies to build Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory that was supposed to make clothes for export to the United States and create — according to Bill Clinton — 100,000 new jobs in Haiti. The project was funded by the U.S. government and cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the largest single allocation of U.S. relief aid.

Yet Caracol has proven a massive failure. First, the industrial park was built on farmland and the farmers had to be moved off their property. Many of them feel they were pushed out and inadequately compensated. Some of them lost their livelihoods. Second, Caracol was supposed to include 25,000 homes for Haitian employees; in the end, the Government Accountability Office reports that only around 6,000 homes were built. Third, Caracol has created 5,000 jobs, less than 10 percent of the jobs promised. Fourth, Caracol is exporting very few products and most of the facility is abandoned. People stand outside every day looking for work, but there is no work to be had, as Haiti’s unemployment rate hovers around 40 percent.

The Clintons say Caracol can still be salvaged. But former Haitian prime minister Jean Bellerive says, “I believe the momentum to attract people there in a massive way is past. Today, it has failed.” Still, Bellerive’s standard of success may not be the same one used by the Clintons. After all, the companies that built Caracol with U.S. taxpayer money have done fine — even if poor Haitians have seen few of the benefits.

Then there is the strange and somehow predictable involvement of Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham. Rodham put in an application for $22 million from the Clinton Foundation to build homes on ten thousand acres of land that he said a “guy in Haiti” had “donated” to him.

“I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Rodham told the New York Times. “I hound my brother-in-law because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from.” Rodham said he expected to net $1 million personally on the deal. Unfortunately, his application didn’t go through.

Rodham had better luck, however, on a second Haitian deal. He mysteriously found himself on the advisory board of a U.S. mining company called VCS. This by itself is odd because Rodham’s resume lists no mining experience; rather, Rodham is a former private detective and prison guard.

The mining company, however, seems to have recognized Rodham’s value. They brought him on board in October 2013 to help secure a valuable gold mining permit in Haiti. Rodham was promised a “finder’s fee” if he could land the contract. Sure enough, he did. For the first time in 50 years, Haiti awarded two new gold mining permits and one of them went to the company that had hired Hillary’s brother.

The deal provoked outrage in the Haitian Senate. “Neither Bill Clinton nor the brother of Hillary Clinton are individuals who share the interest of the Haitian people,” said Haitian mining representative Samuel Nesner. “They are part of the elite class who are operating to exploit the Haitian people.”

Is this too harsh a verdict? I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. Their priority is, well, themselves. The Clintons seem to believe in Haitian reconstruction and Haitian investment as long as these projects match their own private economic interests. They have steered the rebuilding of Haiti in a way that provides maximum benefit to themselves.

No wonder the Clintons refused to meet with the Haitian protesters. Each time the protesters showed up, the Clintons were nowhere to be seen. They have never directly addressed the Haitians’ claims. Strangely enough, they have never been required to do so. The progressive media scarcely covered the Haitian protest. Somehow the idea of Haitian black people calling out the Clintons as aid money thieves did not appeal to the grand pooh-bahs at CBS News, the New York Times, and NPR. For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic party.

For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic party.

 

Why Trump Will Win in November

July 7, 2016

Why Trump Will Win in November, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, July 7, 2016

hj_1

Reprinted from Breitbart.com.

In elections generally – but this one in particular – things are not always what they seem. Take the apparent exculpation of Hillary by FBI director James Comey. The Democrats responded with a statement that the issue had now been “resolved” because the target had not been indicted. But not so fast. The failure to indict was not an exoneration, and what the public witnessed – the secret meeting between the head of Justice and the target’s husband, the job offer to her would-be prosecutor, and the FBI’s  dossier of her misdeeds – was in effect a second trial, and it came with a conviction. The former Secretary of State had lied to Congress and the public, and not about private matters like sexual escapades with interns. She had lied about national security matters, and was reckless in handling secrets that affect the safety of all Americans. Worse, the fact she appeared to be getting away with a serious crime was a dramatic confirmation of Trump’s campaign narrative: the system is corrupt, the fix is in, I will change all this.

The Comey episode also turned a lot of Republican heads – most notably Paul Ryan’s – that had been openly skeptical of Trump’s candidacy, and lukewarm in endorsing his campaign. Until that moment, the failure of some Republicans to rally behind the Republican nominee, indeed to refrain from seconding Democrat attacks, has been the chief weakness of Trump’s candidacy. When Trump objected to an obviously biased judge – a member of “La Raza” and opponent of securing the border – Ryan and other Republicans joined the Democrats in the ludicrous charge that Trump was a racist. (What Republican candidate in the last thirty years have the Democrats not slandered as racist?) But Ryan is not attacking Trump now. Instead he is calling on officials to remove Hillary’s security clearance – a strong signal to voters that she is not fit to be commander-in-chief, and a powerful reinforcement of Trump’s campaign theme.

At the moment, Trump is in a virtual dead heat with Hillary, which is remarkable considering the slanderous attacks on his character not only by Democrats but by the chorus of #NeverTrump Republicans who have also called him a sexist and xenophobe, and have compared him to Mussolini and Hitler. These negatives have hurt him but will ultimately fail for the same reason that the anti-Trump attacks in the primary failed. Trump is not an unknown quantity. He has been in front of the American public for thirty or forty years. Nothing in the public record would validate the charge Trump is a racist, let alone Hitler. Consequently these negatives are unlikely to over-ride the actual issues when voters make the judgments that will determine the election. At the same time, the obviousness of the slanders merely serves to confirm Trump’s narrative that corrupt elites fear him and will do anything to prevent him from upsetting their applecarts.

The reason Trump will win in November is that national security is at the top of voter concerns and Trump has been a strong advocate on this front. Beginning with his promise to build a wall, made national security issues – vetting Syrian Muslim refugees, rebuilding the military, “bombing the sh-t” out of ISIS and naming the enemy – have been centerpieces of his campaign. Of course he has also had help from the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino and Orlando, and from a feckless Obama who refuses to recognize the Islamist threat. But so did Mitt Romney, who had Benghazi and Fort Hood and the same feckless commander-in-chief to work with. Romney, however, chose not to do so. He took the war issue off the table when he embraced Obama’s foreign policy in the third presidential debate and never tried to make it central again.

Since World War II no Republican has won the popular vote in a presidential election where national security has not been a primary issue. The one seeming exception is Bush’s victory in 2000. But Bush did not win the popular vote even though he was able to get the necessary majority in the electoral college.  In this election, Trump has instinctively seized the high ground on national security. He has put the disasters of Obama’s Middle East retreats front and center, and challenged the crippling denial of the commander-in-chief and his failure to take appropriate measures to defeat our enemies at home and abroad.

Thanks to nearly eight years of a party in power that refuses to secure our borders and is more interested in disarming law-abiding Americans than confronting the terror threat in our midst, national security is now a primary issue on the minds of all Americans. Donald Trump speaks to those concerns in a way that the damaged and compromised Hillary cannot. Her fingerprints are all over the disastrous Obama policies in the Middle East. National security is an issue that crosses party lines and also gender lines. Even more important, it is an issue that unifies the Republican coalition, whose current disunity is Trump’s greatest weakness. With the fallout from Hillary’s server fail as a backdrop, Trump should be able to bring his party together at the upcoming convention, and go on to secure a victory in November.

Trump Rips Clinton, Associated Press Rips Trump

June 22, 2016

Trump Rips Clinton, Associated Press Rips Trump, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, June 22, 2016

Today Donald Trump delivered a major speech attacking Hillary Clinton. We may have more to say about the speech later, but for now I want to highlight one of the more remarkable instances of media bias in a long time.

The Associated Press has historically been regarded as a straight, relatively non-partisan news source. That has changed in recent years, because of stories like this one on Trump’s speech, by Julie Pace and Jill Colvin. It begins:

Donald Trump launched a broad rebuke of his presidential rival Hillary Clinton Wednesday, accusing her of being “a world class liar” who personally profited from her tenure at the State Department. “She gets rich making you poor,” Trump said.

Seeking to steady his campaign after a difficult stretch, the presumptive Republican nominee cast himself as the White House candidate best positioned to address Americans’ economic interests.

“This election will decide whether we’re ruled by the people or the politicians,” Trump said during an address at his hotel in New York’s SoHo neighborhood. He made his arguments in a pointed yet measured tone, less loud and strident than has been typical in most previous campaign speeches.

The AP can’t wait any longer before telling the reader: don’t you believe it!

Yet his remarks included erroneous statements and distortions about Clinton’s record, and he frequently referenced sources of information that have been widely questioned, including the book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer.

Wow! Nothing like a little up-front editorializing. Curiously, however, the AP fails to cite a single alleged instance of an “erroneous statement” by Trump. And Schweizer’s book is meticulously researched; it is the definitive work on Bill and Hillary Clinton’s corruption. Has it been “questioned”? Well, sure: by Hillary.

I think the media campaign to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton will exceed anything we have ever seen.

If you want to learn more about Clinton Cash, check out our podcast interview with Peter.

ABC: Major Clinton Donor Placed on Sensitive Intelligence Board Despite No Experience

June 10, 2016

ABC: Major Clinton Donor Placed on Sensitive Intelligence Board Despite No Experience, ABC News via YouTube, June 10,  2016