Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

How the Russiagate Conspiracy Benefits Those in Power, by Alan Macleod

This is a good history of the sordid Russiagate concoction and the conspiracy to bring down Trump. From Alan Macleod at theantimedia.org:

To the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, becoming the 45th president of the United States. Not least shocked were corporate media, and the political establishment more generally; the Princeton Election Consortium confidently predicted an over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (10/17/16) said it could be a “Goldwater-style landslide.”

The election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many (Independent, 11/5/16).

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and her team actively attempted to secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest candidate to beat. The Podesta emails show that her team considered even before the primaries that associating Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning strategy and employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.

With Clinton claiming, “Putin would rather have a puppet as president,” Russia was by far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates (FAIR.org10/13/16), easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media seized upon the theme, with Paul Krugman (New York Times7/22/16) asserting Trump would be a “Siberian candidate,” while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden (Washington Post5/16/16) claimed Trump would be Russia’s “useful fool.”

The day after the election, Jonathan Allen’s book Shattered detailed, Clinton’s team decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored “fake news” online was the primary reason for their loss.

Within weeks, the Washington Post (11/24/16) was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com, which purports to help users differentiate sources as fake or genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news (FAIR.org12/1/1612/8/16). The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources critiquing the “mainstream media,” the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton, Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of Russian propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against foreign intervention and war with Russia, that’s evidence that you are reading Kremlin-penned fake news.

To continue reading: How the Russiagate Conspiracy Benefits Those in Power

Advertisements

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

Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400 Million To Clinton Campaign, by Tyler Durden

Even though it comes from “evil” Vladimir Putin, this looks like a claim worth investigating. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday’s joint press conference with President Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million in illegally earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British financier Bill Browder – at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said “accompanied and guided these transactions.”

Browder made billions in Russia during the 90’s. In December, a Moscow court sentenced Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder’s associates of illegally earning over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton.

After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to come to Russia for their investigation – as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to investigate in the U.S., Putin said this:

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case.  Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.  Well that’s their personal case.

It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was illegal.  So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions.  So we have an interest in questioning them.

To continue reading: Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400 Million To Clinton Campaign

3 Key Takeaways From The Disastrous Strzok Hearing, by Jon Hall

If you drill down into Peter Strzok’s testimony from his hearing before Congress, there are at least three issues of potential criminality that must be further investigated. From Jon Hall at fmshooter.com:

Last Thursday, embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok testified and was questioned by members of the House during a publicly broadcast hearing that spanned for more than ten hours.

Largely, the hearing was partisan posturing from both sides – with the Republicans grilling Strzok over his text messages to and from FBI mistress Lisa Page and the Democrats widely supporting and applauding Strzok’s fiery defiance.

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) even went so far as to suggest Strzok deserved a purple heart for enduring the GOP’s treatment of him at the hearing. 

Despite the limitless posturing – a few key questions were answered in the lengthy ten hours…

How Clinton’s charge of using a private home e-mail server went from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”?

Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) inquired how the wording of a statement condemning Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server was changed before it was even issued.

Strzok, who led the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal e-mail server, rephrased the charge of Clinton’s actions from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in a draft of the FBI’s statement that was publicly issued by then-FBI Director, James Comey.

However, Strzok argued that the revision was introduced by the FBI’s legal counsel, who noted that “gross negligence” carried a specific legal meaning with specific legal implications.

When Sensenbrenner asked why the change had been made, Strzok explained:

With regard to that decision, there was concern within the perspective of a legal definition of that term that people would draw an inference based on that use that it was necessarily talking a specific subset of a statute…

Sensenbrenner’s reply? “That rates four Pinocchios”.  

Were Clinton’s e-mails sent to a “foreign entity”?

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) revealed that virtually all of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails were sent to a foreign entity and the FBI didn’t bother to follow-up on the finding.

Gohmert detailed:

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker… to brief you [Strzok]… about an anomaly they had found with Hillary Clinton’s e-mails… When they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails – every single one except four – over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list… To an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia…

To continue reading: 3 Key Takeaways From The Disastrous Strzok Hearing

Honduras Is a Hellhole: Who’s Responsible? by Justin Raimondo

People leave hellholes, and in the case of Honduras, a lot of them come to the US. There is some justice in that, because the US played a significant part in making Honduras a hellhole. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

Hillary Clinton, US imperialism, and criminal cronyism

As tens of thousands gather at our southern border, roiling US politics, the question arises: why are so many of the asylum-seekers and migrants crossing the border illegally from three Central American countries in particular: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala?

To begin with, it’s no coincidence that these are the three “most invaded” countries south of the Rio Grande – that is, invaded by the United States and its proxies.

The Reagan years saw the apex of US intervention in the region, with fear of Communist “infiltration” motivating massive US aid to local despots and right-wing death squads throughout Central and South America: the fear of Cuban and Soviet influence drove US policy. In El Salvador, a raging civil war between rightist landowners and a leftist insurgency cost tens of thousands of lives and billions in lost income. In Guatemala, with a long history of US support to a callous and violent elite, a 36-year civil war between conservative landowners and Communist-led guerrillas devastated the country. Honduras is the scene of a recent US-backed coup, and also of a short story by O. Henry wherein the phrase “banana republic” was coined. A more appropriate phrase describing this Central American country could hardly be imagined, what with bananas looming large as the national product and source of wealth, and lots of political intrigue – periodic coups, assassinations, incredible corruption, all of it presided over by the warlords of Washington and their corporate favorites.

So what are these “refugees” fleeing? Is it so bad that parents are justified in paying smugglers to guide their underage children – traveling alone! – across the US-Mexican border?

Unlike the rest of the media, which has routinely ignored most of what goes on in Latin America since the end of the cold war, I’ve been covering the region regularly. On Honduras alone, see here, here, here, and here (since 2006). As I wrote last year:

Honduras has always been an American plaything, to be toyed with for the benefit of United Fruit (rebranded Chiquita) and the native landowning aristocracy, and disciplined when necessary: Washington sent in the Marines a total of seven timesbetween 1903 and 1925. The Honduran peasants didn’t like their lands being confiscated by the government and turned over to foreign-owned producers, who were granted monopolistic franchises by corrupt public officials. Periodic rural revolts started spreading to the cities, despite harsh repression, and the country – ruled directly by the military since 1955 – returned to a civilian regime in 1981.”

To continue reading: Honduras Is a Hellhole: Who’s Responsible?

Libya “Before And After” Photos Go Viral, by Tyler Durden

Obama kind of, sort of admitted that Libya was the low point of his presidency, but Hillary Clinton, that interventions biggest cheerleader, has never acknowledged that it was a disaster, nor has she apologized for it. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

A Libyan man who took photos of himself posing at various spots across Beghazi in 2000 has revisited the same locations 18 years later to photograph life under the new “NATO liberated” Libya.

The “before and after” pics showing the utter devastation of post-Gaddafi Libya have gone viral, garnering 50,000 retweets after they were posted to an account that features historical images of Libya under Gaddafi’s rule between 1969 and 2011.

It appears people do still care about Libya even if the political elites in Paris, London, and Washington who destroyed the country have moved on. Though we should recall that British foreign secretary Boris Johnson was caught on tape in a private meeting last year saying Libya was ripe for UK investment, but only after Libyans “clear the dead bodies away.” 

We previously detailed in Libya’s Slave Auctions And African Genocide: What Hillary Knew how Libya went from being a stable, modernizing secular state to a hellhole of roving jihadist militias, warring rival governments, and open-air slave auctions of captured migrants.

Yet what the viral photos confirm is that Libya was once a place of sprawling hotels, wide and clean city streets, functioning infrastructure, and lively neighborhoods. But these very places are now bullet-ridden ruins rotting amidst the political backdrop of the ‘Mad Max’ style chaos unleashed immediately after US-NATO’s bombing the country into regime change.

Hillary still says that she has no regrets even after Obama timidly voiced a half-hearted and too-little-too-late Libya mea culpa of sorts in 2016.

Though Hillary’s beloved Libyan Al Qaeda …”rebels” — legitimized and empowered through broad support from the West — are now among the very militias hosting slave auctions and fueling the European refugee crisis, she’s never so much as hinted that regime change in Libya left the country and much of the region in shambles. Instead, she simply chose to conclude her role in the tragic story of Libya with her crazed and gleeful declaration of “we came, we saw, he died.”

Regime change enthusiasts everywhere please take note of what your blind jingoism has wrought.

To continue reading: Libya “Before And After” Photos Go Viral

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