Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s COS copied on all decisions, by Micah Morrison and Luke Rosa

The State Department approved Bill Clinton speeches and deals worth $48 million while his wife was Secretary of State. Only a hard-bitten cynic would suggest Bill’s paydays were meant to influence his wife. From Micah Morrison and Luke Rosiak:

A joint investigation by the Washington Examiner and the nonprofit watchdog group Judicial Watch found that former President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton‘s tenure as secretary of state.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released Wednesday in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials charged with reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches did not object to a single one.

Some of the speeches were delivered in global hotspots and were paid for by entities with business or policy interests in the U.S.

The documents also show that in June 2011, the State Department approved a consulting agreement between Bill Clinton and a controversial Clinton Foundation adviser, Doug Band.

The consultancy with Band’s Teneo Strategy ended eight months later following an uproar over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm MF Global.

State Department legal advisers, serving as “designated agency ethics officials,” approved Bill Clinton’s speeches in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Panama,Turkey, Taiwan, India, the Cayman Islands and other countries.

The memos approving Mr. Clinton’s speeches were routinely copied to Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s senior counsel and chief of staff.

Mills is a longtime Clinton troubleshooter who defended the president during his impeachment. In the Benghazi affair, Mills reportedly berated a high-ranking official at the U.S. embassy in Libya for talking to a Republican congressman.

Under State Department protocols, a “designated agency ethics official” is assigned to advise the secretary of state about “potential or actual conflicts of interest.”

In a December 2008 memorandum of understanding, the protocols were expanded to Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and related initiatives — specifically, to reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches and consulting deals.

In an accompanying letter to the State Department legal adviser, Clinton lawyer David Kendall noted that Bill Clinton would disclose proposed consulting deals and, for speeches, provide “the identities of the host(s) (the entity that pay the speaker’s fee)” so that the State Department “in consultation with the White House as appropriate, may conduct a review for any real or apparent conflicts of interest with the duties of the Secretary of State.”

To continue reading: State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s COS copied on all decisions

Advertisements

Bill’s Belated #MeToo Moment, by Maureen Dowd

The #MeToo movement is finally examining the transgressions of sexual predator in chief Bill Clinton. From Maureen Down at nytimes.com:

Bill Clinton at a campaign event last year for a New Jersey candidate.CreditLucas Jackson/Reuters

Book tours can be brutal.

It took 20 years for Bill Clinton to be properly publicly shamed for the ugly bargain at the heart of the Clinton operation.

As a politician, the former president was gifted. James Carville liked to say: “People are confused. They don’t know which one they like more, the peace or the prosperity.”

Even Barack Obama, another talented pol, was forced to turn to his former nemesis to help sell his agenda for his second term, christening Bill the “Secretary of Explaining Stuff.” And if Hillary had listened to Bill’s urgent warnings about addressing the alienation of white men in flyover country in 2016, she’d be president.

Bill Clinton was so popular that, during his cascading scandals with women, some political analysts on the left suggested that Americans should look at a commander in chief in terms of private character and public character, disregarding personal peccadilloes and giving weight only to policy decisions.

But with the Clintons, the public and private were always intertwined in an inextricable and unappetizing way.

The desire among his supporters for a liberal agenda was held hostage to Bill Clinton’s libertine appetites. Let Bill be regressive and transgressive with women he was attracted to, and he would be progressive for all women.

You want enlightened policies for women and a record number of women in exalted posts? Then you must endure — and cover up for — “Saturday Night Bill,” as the dark side of the president was dubbed.

His wife and other prominent feminists backed Bill back then, and he and Hillary always had henchmen who were willing to smear Bill’s girlfriends and victims as trailer trash, cash-for-trash, nutty and slutty. (Think of how the Clinton war room would have Giuliani-ed a Stormy Daniels in those days.)

To continue reading: Bill’s Belated #MeToo Moment

Harvey Weinstein and the Clinton Protection Racket, by Ann Coulter

Anybody reading this who thinks Harvey Weinstein’s crimes would have been prosecuted and the #MeToo movement inaugurated if Hillary Clinton had been elected is nowhere near cynical enough to be on this site and should find a nice pabulum mainstream media site for their reading pleasure. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

Harvey Weinstein’s recent perp walk reminds me of another great thing about Trump winning the election: Hillary Clinton isn’t president.

A New York Times article on Weinstein’s court appearance noted how the “ground shifted” last year, finally ending the “code of silence” surrounding powerful men. Why “last year,” if this has been going on for decades?

The article explained that Weinstein’s power was enormous, his connections extensive and his willingness to play dirty without bounds. Did Harvey lose his money and connections “last year”?

Nope. But “last year” was the first year of Trump’s presidency, or as I like to think of it, the first year of Hillary not being president. Ever.

The liberal protection racket for sexual predators was always intimately intertwined with the Clintons. The template used to defend Bill Clinton became a model for all left-wing sexual predators. They all hired the same lawyers and detectives and counted on the same cultural elites to mete out punishment to anyone who stood in the way of their Caligula lifestyles. It was Total War against the original #MeToo movement.

Even Teddy Kennedy never plotted revenge on reporters or smeared his sexual conquests as bimbos, trailer park trash and stalkers. That was the Clinton model.

Showing how incestuous it was, in 2000 — two years after Clinton’s impeachment — Weinstein used his publishing company, Talk/Miramax, overseen by Tina Brown, to take revenge on anyone involved in Clinton’s impeachment.

The publishing house commissioned a book by John Connolly to dig into the private sex lives of the people who had helped expose Bill Clinton, e.g., the lawyers behind Paula Jones’ lawsuit, Ken Starr’s staff, Linda Tripp lawyer Jim Moody, Matt Drudge, reporter Michael Isikoff and so on.

Concise summary of the book: All of us were gay, except me, because I was having an affair with Geraldo Rivera.

To continue reading: Harvey Weinstein and the Clinton Protection Racket

The True Origins Of The US-Chinese Trade War, by Andrew Korybko

The US tried to bring China into the US fold, but China had other ideas. Who knew? FRom Andrew Korybko at orientalreview.org:

China responded to Trump’s tariffs with economic restrictions of its own, though its market has always been notoriously difficult to enter due to Beijing’s own ironically “protectionist” policies designed to safeguard its domestic producers, but the government has been easing its prior regulations in recent years in order to facilitate the country’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity. The developing trade war between the US and China threatens to formalize the long-running economic competition between these two Great Powers as they vie with one another over control of the world order, with Washington wanting to retain its erstwhile but fading unipolar dominance while Beijing wants to pioneer the emergence of a multipolar system marked by a diversity of theoretically equal stakeholders.

The friction between these contradictory forces is the basis of the ongoing New Cold War, though there’s a bit more of a backstory to this global struggle than just that.

The US thought that “winning back Beijing” through its late Cold War-era alliance with China against the USSR would allow Washington to do as it pleases to what its decision makers had convinced themselves was their largest proxy state to date, but the US’ betrayal of China through the failed Tiananmen Square Color Revolution attempt of 1989 forever changed how the East Asian country’s communist leaders viewed America. Nevertheless, the naïve liberal-globalists of the Clinton era thought that they could bribe China to remain “loyal” to the US-led global world order that emerged after the Cold War by relying on “win-win” investments that would enrich the American elite while helping China rapidly modernize.

Suffice to say, this presumption proved to be totally false.

The so-called “Washington Consensus” and attendant “rules of the game” are rigged in order to benefit the US and indefinitely perpetuate its global hegemony, which is why China continuously broke the rules to its advantage but was allowed to get away with it for so long because of the aforementioned relationship that it had with naïve liberal-globalist American elites who profited from this system at the expense of average Americans. The Obama Administration tried to preemptively “balance” the inevitable geopolitical consequences of this trend by proposing the so-called “Group of Two” or “Chimerica” global partnership with China, but Beijing rejected this outreach.

To continue reading: The True Origins Of The US-Chinese Trade War

They “Said” That? 1/18/18

No real quote tonight, just two pictures that speak volumes. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are both 71.

Trump has never drank or smoked, and just got a clean bill of health. Heaven only knows how badly Bill Clinton has debauched himself. It catches up with you.

The Last, Best Hope, by Robert Gore

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long.

Donald Trump’s candidacy posed problems for the government and its string-pullers. It repudiated their rule and vision, especially their foreign policy. Trump threatened a bipartisan consensus based on US global dominance and interventionism they had championed since World War II. He proposed improving relations with Russia and questioned the orthodoxy that had embroiled the US in conflicts across the Middle East and Northern Africa. Perpetual conflict has been the fountainhead for the Deep State’s funding and steady accretion of power.

Trump also posed a more immediate threat. As president, he would have access to troves of information, some of which could reveal skeletons in the establishment’s closet. His Attorney General would have the power to investigate and prosecute. Those dangers may well have been the primary cause of establishment hostility.

However, the powers that be didn’t expect Trump’s victory, one reason their response has been so weak. The FBI, NSA, CIA and the other agencies considered part of the intelligence community (IC), operate in the dark, away from journalistic, public, and political scrutiny. To mount its offensive against Trump, the IC had to emerge from the shadows.

The kind of lies used through the years to preserve “plausible deniability” and deflect potential oversight and investigation have proven too flimsy to stand up to serious scrutiny. Skepticism, probing questions, and debunking did not come from the mainstream media, a reliable Deep State ally, but from the alternative media and Trump’s supporters.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know the IC has unlimited access to communications and computer networks. The IC or its corporate partners store these information streams. Before he left office, Barack Obama signed an executive order making it easier for the IC to share this data amongst its agencies. Yet with all this information and potential collaboration, after over a year of allegations and investigations, the IC has produced nothing to substantiate its claim of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the election.

As if to highlight this lack of hard evidence, on January 6 of this year an Intelligence Community Assessment, commissioned by Obama, was released purporting to be the consensus view of all 17 US intelligence agencies. It wasn’t, it was the views of a small group of “hand-picked” (phrase used by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper) analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The 25-page report had neither direct evidence nor proof, only an assessment, “based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” (The quote is from the assessment.)

Not only was the information “incomplete or fragmentary,” some of it was pure fiction, emanating from Fusion GPS’s Trump Dossier, much of which has been subsequently discredited. That dossier, an attempt to generate “dirt” on Trump, his campaign, and their connections to Russia, was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In retrospect, that the three agencies would use unverified information from a compromised source as one of the primary bases of its assessment sent a clear message: we’ve got nothing.

Wikileaks obtained and disseminated over 40,000 DNC emails starting July 22, 2016. Many of the emails embarrassed the DNC and Hillary Clinton. It was alleged that Russia had hacked the emails and given them to Wikileaks. It was that allegation that got the ball rolling on the Russian influence story.

It was only a year later that the Veteran Intelligence for Sanity (VIPS) challenged the technical basis for the hacking claim. Forensically examining metadata from the intrusion into the DNC server, the VIPS concluded that the emails could not have been remotely hacked. The DNC data was copied at a speed far exceeding the internet’s capability. It had to have been downloaded on site to an external storage device by someone with physical access to the DNC server. That conclusion has mostly been ignored by the mainstream media but has not been challenged. It completely undermines the Russian hacking allegation, the wellspring of “Russiagate.”

As one Russian influence story wanes, two others wax. The 2010 Uranium One sale to a subsidiary of Russian company Rosatom reeks of impropriety on the part of Russian operatives, Uranium One, the Clintons, the FBI, the Attorney General at the time, Eric Holder, and the Justice Department (see “The Rout Is On,” SLL).

The Fusion GPS Trump Dossier appears to be a grab bag of unsubstantiated allegations compiled by former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele. He claims they came from contacts developed when he was head of the Russia desk at MI6, British intelligence. (see “How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier‘”) Whether they did or not, none of the allegations have been proven true and some have been disproved. The “information” may have actually been Russian disinformation, or lies.

A thread running through these stories is IC involvement and culpability, particularly the FBI. Robert Mueller headed the FBI during the Russian nuclear investigation, which began in 2008. The results of the bureau’s investigation was either not made available to the foreign investment committee or was ignored and the Uranium One sale went through.

Mueller protegé and friend James Comey, former head of the FBI, relied on the Trump dossier to justify extensive investigation and surveillance of Trump’s team before and after the election. He has admitted that it was, in part, the basis of the IC’s January 2017 assessment, although Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a statement shortly after it was released stating that the IC had made no determination of its reliability.

Comey’s behavior is part of a larger pattern: he consistently acted to further the political aims of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Well before the FBI had interviewed several key witness in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, including Clinton, he began drafting a statement exonerating her. During the investigation, the FBI gave immunity to key Clinton aides and did not require them to turn over their computers.

After Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch’s July 27, 2016 meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac, the FBI was unconcerned with whether or not anything improper had transpired, but was quite concerned with who leaked the meeting to the press. Nine days later, Comey announced his decision not to charge Clinton. The FBI has stonewalled a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request for documents pertaining to that meeting since July of last year. Those documents have now surfaced and reveal the FBI’s investigative focus.

When the DNC claimed that it had been hacked, it denied the FBI access to its computer servers. Despite not having conducting its own investigation of the servers, the FBI and the rest of the IC accepted the conclusion of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike Inc., hired by the DNC, that the servers had been hacked by two separate hacker groups employed by the Russian government. CrowdStrike was founded by “Russian-born Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow at the NATO-funded, intensely Russophobic Atlantic Council.” Its work was subsequently discredited.

Comey is not the only one who was or remains in the FBI’s upper echelon who have demonstrated clear conflicts of interest. Agent Peter Strzok, changed the description of Clinton’s behavior in Comey’s email exoneration from “grossly negligent,” which carries criminal liability, to “extremely careless,” which does not. He was demoted for anti-Trump text messages to his mistress, also an FBI employee. The FBI, Justice Department, and Robert Mueller were aware of the texts for months and deliberately withheld them from Congress.

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was involved with the Clinton email investigation. His wife ran for the Virginia state senate and received $700,000 in campaign contributions from political groups aligned with Clinton and Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe. Comey was briefed on those ties and despite the obvious conflict of interest, did nothing.

Robert Mueller’s team is also compromised. Mr. Mueller’s deputy, Andrew Weissmann, was the FBI’s lead on the Trump probe. Many of his attorneys come from Obama’s Department of Justice. Nine of the fifteen publicly identified attorneys are Democratic donors, and several donated to the Clinton campaign in 2016.

Attorney Jeannie Rhee defended the Clinton Foundation against racketeering charges, and represented Clinton personally in the email investigation. Attorney Aaron Zebley represent Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who helped manager her private server. Weissman emailed former acting Attorney General Sally Yates he was “proud and in awe” of her for her defiance against Trump’s travel ban.

As Kimberley A. Strassel noted in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece: “The question isn’t whether these people are legally allowed (under the Hatch Act) to investigate Mr. Trump—as the left keeps insisting. The question is whether a team of declared Democrats is capable of impartially investigating a Republican president.” (“Obstruction of Congress,” WSJ, 12/8/17)

Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for relatively trivial infractions—which he could and should have avoided simply by saying he didn’t remember what he said—and Hillary Clinton’s exoneration demonstrate a gaping difference in legal standards and rigor of investigation between the FBI’s efforts directed against the Trump and Clinton camps. Flynn’s plea, and the charges lodged against Paul Manafort and two campaign aides, are all, so far, that Robert Mueller has to show for his investigation into Russian collusion with Trump and team during the election.

Flynn’s crimes occurred after the election. Manafort, Trump’s campaign chief for two months, was charged with money laundering, not Russian collusion. The closest Mueller has gotten to anything suggesting such collusion is a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos—a tangential figure in the Trump campaign—to lying to the FBI about contacts with intermediaries purportedly linked to Russian intelligence services.

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long. His lawyers need to compile an extensive brief, detailing all of these damning details and developments. The executive summary would be the case Trump makes to the public. Due to political bias, the FBI’s investigations of Clinton’s emails and the charges of Russian influence have been irretrievably compromised. The bias extends to Robert Mueller’s team of investigators. Mueller never should have been appointed; he was already compromised by the Uranium One matter. Mueller, the FBI, and Obama holdovers in the Justice Department have repeatedly stonewalled and subverted legitimate congressional requests for documents and testimony.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board has suggested, Mueller should resign. If he doesn’t, Trump should fire him. He should be replaced with someone who has none of the taint that permeates the present investigations. The successor’s investigation should be confined to Mueller’s original mission: investigating alleged Russian collusion with Trump and his team to influence to 2016 election. If, as is likely, nothing is found within six months, wind up the investigation.

Incoming FBI director Christopher Wray must conduct a thorough house-cleaning and refer findings of possible criminal behavior to the Justice Department. The Justice Department itself needs a thorough housecleaning. After which, investigations should be opened or reopened into: Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, Fusion GPS, how WikiLeaks obtained the emails it disseminated, and finally, and most importantly, the FBI, rest of the IC, DNC, Hillary Clinton, and Obama administration’s attempt to nullify a presidential election.

This represents the last, best hope to confront and thwart the Deep State. Trump’s performance as president hasn’t been the disaster many predicted, and he’s repeatedly outmaneuvered his opponents. He’s got the winds of a decent economy and strong stock market at his back. If he doesn’t take the initiative while the Deep State is bleeding from its self-inflicted wounds, the opportunity will vanish. If it does, the Deep State will ensure that no unvetted candidate ever gets near the White House again. Its plunder and destruction of the United States will proceed, renewed and unhindered…until its work is done.

Christmas Is Coming

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

New documents reveal FBI’s Clinton cover-up, by Tom Fitton

The infamous Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting reeks of impropriety, but the FBI’s only concern was keeping it secret. From Tom Fitton at foxnews.com:

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.

And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.

If not for Judicial Watch’s lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.

To continue reading: New documents reveal FBI’s Clinton cover-up