Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy?

[Chef Ramsay]

Clinton's are pulling in MITT ROMNEY amounts of money.

It's widely known the Clintons have done well for themselves in recent years, but until now, it wasn't clear just how well. Today, the campaign filed a financial disclosure report revealing they earned $30 million in just the last seventeen months.

The report is not yet posted on the Federal Elections Commission website, but the campaign voluntarily released it to reporters. It covers the period from January 2014 to present.
In that time the former president and former secretary of state earned just over $25 million from about 100 paid speeches. That works out to about $250,000 per speech. Not bad work, if you can get it, which they can.

Another $5 million came from Simon and Schuster, the publisher of Hillary Clinton's book Hard Choices.

This income puts them in the upper echelons of the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States. An income of $430,000 puts you in the top 1 percent.

More...http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/15/407117996/clintons-earned-30-million-from-paid-speeches-and-book-sales

[1714910691]

1714910691

[1714910691]

1714910691

[1714910691]

1714910691

[1714910691]

1714910691

[1714910691]

1714910691

[Wilikon]

Clinton's are pulling in MITT ROMNEY amounts of money.

It's widely known the Clintons have done well for themselves in recent years, but until now, it wasn't clear just how well. Today, the campaign filed a financial disclosure report revealing they earned $30 million in just the last seventeen months.

The report is not yet posted on the Federal Elections Commission website, but the campaign voluntarily released it to reporters. It covers the period from January 2014 to present.
In that time the former president and former secretary of state earned just over $25 million from about 100 paid speeches. That works out to about $250,000 per speech. Not bad work, if you can get it, which they can.

Another $5 million came from Simon and Schuster, the publisher of Hillary Clinton's book Hard Choices.

This income puts them in the upper echelons of the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States. An income of $430,000 puts you in the top 1 percent.

More...http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/15/407117996/clintons-earned-30-million-from-paid-speeches-and-book-sales

One of those are professional politician crooks who smell like a bad case of athletes foot. The other one helped the logistic of the olympic games and their athletes. One was accused of not paying his taxes. Every penny one made has been traced by a not so friendly irs. The other father-mother-daughter flesh eating bacteria sandwich forgot to declare millions of donation from foreigners to a very forgiven irs. The family nuked a whole secretary of state server, etc, etc...

Sorry. Not the same type of $$$


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/06/mitt-romney/how-important-was-romney-fixing-troubled-salt-lake/

[Buttknuckle]

To answer the initial question: no.  I refuse to vote for her simply based on my belief that concentrating power in just a few families is bad.  Same goes for bush.

As to the pics, awesome post but why do people care so much?  Who knows what sort of marriage they have?  Perhaps hillary has a cuckquean fetish!

[Wilikon]

To answer the initial question: no.  I refuse to vote for her simply based on my belief that concentrating power in just a few families is bad.  Same goes for bush.

As to the pics, awesome post but why do people care so much?  Who knows what sort of marriage they have?  Perhaps hillary has a cuckquean fetish!

Hillary was mad at bill regarding Monica because he was caught. Not because of the cheating. The images was a reply to someone thinking bill was a cool dude, a cool professional womanizer...

[Wilikon]

Stop me if you’ve heard this one; Hillary took money from more companies seeking influence

So a politician, a lobbyist and a journalist walk into a bar…

Legal Insurrection popped up with another tidbit from the recent document dump of campaign finance reports which came out on Friday. This one caught my attention because it involved not only Hillary Clinton, but a company located fairly close to me… Corning, a major manufacturer of glass and ceramics located in upstate New York. The company has a keen interest in foreign trade deals and stays involved in lobbying efforts to expand them

But they also keep a close eye on politicians who may be involved in such decisions, or so it seems. During Clinton’s tenure at the State Department they lobbied the agency heavily regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In what I’m sure is a totally unrelated coincidence, they also donated somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Nothing all that unusual there, at least compared to what we’ve seen from other companies and governments. (And, er… journalists at ABC.) But last year it went a step further. Jonathan Allen (yes, I know it’s Vox, but…) points out the key factor.


[L]ast July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.


This isn’t the biggest speaking fee that Hillary Clinton ever received, nor will it be the last one we hear about in this context, I’m sure. But it’s notable that such an active lobbying entity who had specifically been pushing the State Department on a critical trade issue currently under debate was laying out those sorts of donations to the foundation. When you add in that nearly quarter million dollar speaking fee which went directly into Hillary Clinton’s purse – as opposed to curing AIDS or whatever – the the smoke is getting pretty thick on the ground, even if you haven’t seen the actual fire yet.

As Legal Insurrection asks:

With the added evidence of speaking fees as another form of Clinton payola, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have some questions to answer. Among them: what did these companies expect in return for the out-sized “speaking fees” and did they have cause to believe that their “investment” would pay off in some real way in a Clinton administration?

At this point, since there likely never will be any “smoking gun” found, it’s not a question of what did you know and when did you know it. It’s more a case of, who did you get paid by and what did they expect?


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/17/stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one-hillary-took-money-from-more-companies-seeking-influence/

[Chef Ramsay]

It should be obvious to everyone right now how scummy the Clintons are by using poor people in third world countries as cover to reel in major cash donations and then pocket most of the loot. There's no way you can love your enemy with the likes of these creeps.

[Mudd]

Stop me if you’ve heard this one; Hillary took money from more companies seeking influence

Nothing new here. The Clintons took in 30 million last year from speeches alone:

http://news.sky.com/story/1485366/clintons-earn-30m-obamas-have-1000-in-bank

Most of them will be essentially bribes.

[Chef Ramsay]

Alright folks, Rand Paul was right all along!
----
FOX News reported Monday that the US was sending guns to Banias and Borj Islam, Syria before the Benghazi terrorist attack.

US Intelligence agencies were fully aware that weapons were moving from the terrorist stronghold in Libya to Syria before the attack that killed four Americans…
September 16, 2012 DIA Memo copied to the National Security Council, CIA, and others concluded the Benghazi terrorist attack was planned at least ten or more days in advance…

The memo also tied the attack to 9-11… No discussion of a demonstration or anti-Mohammad video.

US officials were aware that weapons were being shipped to Syria by the Port of Benghazi.


The US was in fact running guns from Benghazi to Syria when the annex and consulate were attacked.

Senator Rand Paul questioned Hillary Clinton about this gun running program back in January 2013 during her testimony on the Benghazi terrorist attack.


Hillary Clinton said she did not know about the program while testifying under oath.
Here is the transcript:

Sen. Rand Paul: My question is, is the US involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Hillary Clinton: To Turkey? I’ll have to take that question for the record. That’s, nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Sen. Rand Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, that annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries? ANy countries, Turkey included?

Hillary Clinton: Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And, I will see what information was available.

Sen. Rand Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Hillary Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

Rand Paul accused the Obama administration in January 2013 of running guns to Syrian rebels.
Rand Paul was right.

Pics, video and more...http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/breaking-rand-paul-was-right-obama-admin-was-running-guns-to-syria-hillary-lied-under-oath/

[Chef Ramsay]

Clinton Friend’s Libya Role Blurs Lines of Politics and Business

When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.

Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is once again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview.

Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.

But an examination by The New York Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.

While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, “message guidance” and planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

More...http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html

[Wilikon]

Alright folks, Rand Paul was right all along!
----
FOX News reported Monday that the US was sending guns to Banias and Borj Islam, Syria before the Benghazi terrorist attack.

US Intelligence agencies were fully aware that weapons were moving from the terrorist stronghold in Libya to Syria before the attack that killed four Americans…
September 16, 2012 DIA Memo copied to the National Security Council, CIA, and others concluded the Benghazi terrorist attack was planned at least ten or more days in advance…

The memo also tied the attack to 9-11… No discussion of a demonstration or anti-Mohammad video.

US officials were aware that weapons were being shipped to Syria by the Port of Benghazi.


The US was in fact running guns from Benghazi to Syria when the annex and consulate were attacked.

Senator Rand Paul questioned Hillary Clinton about this gun running program back in January 2013 during her testimony on the Benghazi terrorist attack.


Hillary Clinton said she did not know about the program while testifying under oath.
Here is the transcript:

Sen. Rand Paul: My question is, is the US involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Hillary Clinton: To Turkey? I’ll have to take that question for the record. That’s, nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Sen. Rand Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, that annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries? ANy countries, Turkey included?

Hillary Clinton: Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And, I will see what information was available.

Sen. Rand Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Hillary Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

Rand Paul accused the Obama administration in January 2013 of running guns to Syrian rebels.
Rand Paul was right.

Pics, video and more...http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/breaking-rand-paul-was-right-obama-admin-was-running-guns-to-syria-hillary-lied-under-oath/

Yes he was.

[Wilikon]

Hillary Clinton Supporters Actually Don't Support Hillary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0SnIgOwZ3A

Funny & sad...

[Wilikon]

HROD17@CLINTONEMAIL.COM

Newly Released Documents Indicate Key Hillary Clinton Claim on Emails Was Not True









Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender’s office.

Multiple emails show Clinton used account “hrod17@clintonemail.com” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that that particular address had not “existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

Another statement from Clinton’s office said she only used one address during her time as secretary of state.

“Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used),” it said. “In March 2013, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.”

Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the “hrod17@clintonemail.com” were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.

A representative for Clinton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.

Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Monday evening that the news proved Clinton “misled public about the use of only one secret email address.”

Earlier this year, it was reported Clinton may have violated federal rules by exclusively using a personal email address to conduct all official government business while serving as secretary of state.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/18/newly-released-documents-indicate-key-hillary-clinton-claim-on-emails-was-not-true/


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/19/us/politics/libya-related-messages-hillary-clinton-email-account.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0

[Wilikon]

Clinton Friend’s Memos on Libya Draw Scrutiny to Politics and Business




When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.

Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview.

Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.

But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.

While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, “message guidance” and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.

The projects — creating floating hospitals to treat Libya’s war wounded and temporary housing for displaced people, and building schools — would have required State Department permits, but foundered before the business partners could seek official approval.

It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton or the State Department knew of Mr. Blumenthal’s interest in pursuing business in Libya; a State Department spokesman declined to say. Many aspects of Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement in the planned Libyan venture remain unclear. He declined repeated requests to discuss it.

But interviews with his associates and a review of previously unreported correspondence suggest that — once again — it may be difficult to determine where one of Mr. Blumenthal’s jobs ended and another began.

Mr. Gowdy’s committee on the attacks in Benghazi hopes to ask Mr. Blumenthal who, if anyone, was paying him to prepare the memos for Mrs. Clinton and whether they were among his responsibilities at the Clinton Foundation. The committee’s investigators are also interested in whether the planned business venture in Libya posed any potential conflicts for Mr. Blumenthal or Mrs. Clinton, whose aides the business partners sought meetings with in early 2012.

The Libya venture came together in 2011 when David L. Grange, a retired Army major general, joined with a newly formed New York firm, Constellations Group, to pursue business leads in Libya. Constellations Group, led by a professional fund-raiser and philanthropist named Bill White, was to provide the leads. Mr. Grange’s company, Osprey Global Solutions, based in North Carolina, would put “boots on the ground to see if there was an opportunity to do business,” Mr. Grange said in an interview.

The men had little experience in Libya. Exactly how Mr. White was to procure leads in Libya is unclear. He spent much of his career as an executive at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum, and had raised money for politicians, businesses and charities. His biography also describes Mr. White as a consultant for Aquahydrate, a bottled-water company whose backers include Ron Burkle, the billionaire investor who had been a close friend of the Clintons.

“We were thinking, ‘O.K., Qaddafi is dead, or about to be, and there’s opportunities,’ ” Mr. White said in a brief telephone interview. He added, “We thought, ‘Let’s try to see who we know there.’ ”

Mr. White declined to answer follow-up questions about what role Mr. Blumenthal was playing in the business venture. But Mr. Grange described Mr. Blumenthal as an adviser to Mr. White’s company, along with two other associates: Tyler Drumheller, a colorful former Central Intelligence Agency official, and Cody Shearer, a longtime Clinton friend.

“I just know that he was working with the team to work on business development,” Mr. Grange said of Mr. Blumenthal.

In the spring of 2011, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Drumheller and Mr. Shearer were helping plan what was to be Mr. Grange’s first trip to Libya, according to emails stolen by a Romanian hacker and published by Gawker and ProPublica in March. Mr. Blumenthal said he had been advised not to comment on the correspondence because the theft remained under investigation by the F.B.I.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html

[Chef Ramsay]

Hillary is so to blame on this Libya situation. She lied about what was going on down there as the Sec of State but her aide Mr, Blumenthal had advised her so many times. Hillary was caught being such a fraud in this and I hope republicans and democrats alike will see this.

[Wilikon]

State Department plans to release Hillary Clinton's emails in January 2016

This. 12 times...

The State Department is proposing a deadline of January 2016 to complete its review and public release of 55,000 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged on a private server and turned over to her former agency last December.

The proposal came Monday night in a document related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Vice News filed in January seeking all of Clinton’s emails.

“The Department’s plan … would result in its review being completed by the end of the year. To factor in the holidays, however, the Department would ask the Court to adopt a proposed completion date of January 15, 2016,” State’s acting director of Information Programs and Services John Hackett said in a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

“The Department understands the considerable public’s [sic] interest in these records and is endeavoring to complete the review and production of them as expeditiously as possible. The collection is, however, voluminous and, due to the breadth of topics, the nature of the communications, and the interests of several agencies, presents several challenges,” Hackett added.

The controversy over Clinton’s private email account led to a turbulent start for her presidential campaign, which she announced last month. She has said she wants the emails public and is eager for State to release them as quickly as possible. Clinton said she turned over all work-related emails to State, but acknowledged that she had erased a roughly equal number of emails her lawyers deemed private.

“I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible,” Clinton tweeted on March 4.

The State Department’s proposal, however, could mean a delay of almost 13 months between the time Clinton turned over some of her records and the bulk of those emails being made public.

Soon after the New York Times revealed in March that Clinton had exclusively used a private email account as secretary of state, State Department spokespeople repeatedly said that they expected the review of the Clinton records to take “several months.” They did not immediately respond to messages Monday night seeking an explanation of why that estimate was so off base.

Hackett said 12 State staffers have been assigned full-time to reviewing the Clinton emails and that it took until sometime this month to scan in the records, which were provided on paper by Clinton in 12 “banker’s boxes” in December. He said the scanning process took five weeks and was “complicated” by some of the printouts of Clinton emails being double-sided.

Hackett also disclosed that personnel from the National Archives have been helping State determine which of the emails Clinton delivered to her former agency are official and which are actually personal. State officials have said at least some of the emails she provided are clearly personal.

“In consultation with the National Archives and Records Administration, the Department also conducted a page-by-page review of the documents to identify, designate, mark, and inventory entirely personal correspondence, i.e., those documents that are not federal records, included within the 55,000 pages,” he wrote.

State Department officials have reaffirmed in recent weeks that they plan an earlier disclosure of a batch of the emails provided to a House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. However, the department’s spokespeople have said only that the initial release will come “soon,” declining to be more specific about the timing of that first release.

Asked by POLITICO Friday when that Libya-related batch of records should emerge, State spokesman Jeff Rathke was vague. “I don’t have an update to share. But yes, we’re aware that there’s interest out there, certainly,” he said at a daily briefing for reporters.

State Department lawyers have complained in court of a “crushing burden” of FOIA requests as well as at least 79 FOIA lawsuits pending against the department. They have also cited the need to prioritize the Clinton email project as a reason for delays in other FOIA cases.

The Iowa caucuses are due to be held Feb. 1, 2016 — just two weeks after the proposed release of Clinton’s emails.

A Clinton campaign spokesman had no immediate comment Monday night on State’s proposal.

Whether to accept State’s proposal will be up to Judge Rudolph Contreras, who is overseeing the Vice News suit, as well as other judges overseeing several other cases seeking narrower slices of Clinton’s emails as secretary of state.



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/state-department-wont-release-hillary-clintons-emails-until-january-2016-118078.html

[Wilikon]

Reporter Dares To Ask Question Clinton Has None Of It


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufKR780DTQQ




"Wait, wait," Clinton said, interrupting the reporter. "Maybe when I finish talking to the people here. How's that?"

Clinton continued, "I might. I'll have to ponder it. I will put it on my list for due consideration."

[Chef Ramsay]

The questions and their quick responses touched on a number of subjects that have been swirling around the candidate, including about the income she received from her speaking engagements and the on-going controversy over her private e-mail system while Secretary of State. Our Robert Costa breaks down the questions and response.

By our count, from our Clinton clock, it had been 40,150 minutes -- nearly a full month -- since Clinton last answered a question from WMUR-TV in New Hampshire. But today, the clock has been reset.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/19/after-40150-minutes-hillary-clinton-takes-some-questions-from-the-press/

[Chef Ramsay]

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — “Hillary! Hillary!” they yelled at the distant figure, from across the parking lot and across the street, at the edge of the Secret Service’s protective zone.

She waved. Then she started walking over, trailed by a phalanx of aides, cops and agents.

“Thank you for standing out here!” Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday, shaking hands with the 10 or so Iowans who had waited in the chilly wind, hoping to see her come out the back door of a bike shop after a campaign event here. “I need your help! I want you to caucus for me!”

This kind of face-to-face interaction isn’t unusual for campaign season in Iowa, of course. But Clinton’s protective detail makes her a different kind of candidate: The cluster of people waiting for her spoke about how the Republicans coming through the state these days are easier to talk to, mingle with.

It was a morning defined by Clinton’s reengagement — with voters beyond those handpicked to meet her and with the traveling press — after nearly a month of closely controlled appearances.

In taking a few questions from reporters, Clinton rapidly addressed a series of controversies swirling around her and her campaign. She expressed regret for voting in favor of the Iraq war , dismissed criticism of her family’s foundation, and defended the millions of dollars she and her husband have made giving speeches.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-media-drought-hillary-clinton-takes-some-questions-in-iowa/2015/05/19/ecb3c6d6-fe4b-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

[Chef Ramsay]

When Hillary gets an unexpected spanking

The Democrats can run, to paraphrase Muhammad Ali’s rebuke of a timid opponent, but they can’t hide. Hillary Clinton is turning her campaign into a game of hide-and-seek, and the party is terrified. Some leading Democrats are beginning to say out loud what they have said privately for weeks.

What she thought would be a cake walk to Philadelphia and the 2016 nomination is beginning to look like a cornbread walk, and cornbread has no icing.

She took a spanking on the Sunday talk shows, with her party critics focusing on her reluctance to speak up on several key issues, including one or two that have been close to the beating heart of her party.

The rebukes are still softly stated, but there’s power in understatement. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California says it would be “very helpful” if she took a stand on the trans-Pacific trade agreement, which President Obama is trying hard to push through Congress. If he makes it the credit will go to free-trade Republicans. Democrats beholden to the labor unions — which is most of them — threaten to deprive the president of a majority of his own Democrats.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/18/editorial-hillary-clinton-takes-a-beating-from-all/#ixzz3adWeozCh

[Chef Ramsay]

After boosting trade pacts, Hillary Clinton gets millions from speeches to traders

WASHINGTON — Traveling the world as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a vocal booster of legislation to fast-track congressional action on global trade agreements.

She also spoke in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would lift barriers to trade with 11 Asian and Pacific Rim countries.

Now, with the release last week of her latest financial disclosure statement, Clinton has revealed the flow of a different kind of trade dollars.

Companies and coalitions aligned with her past positions on the trade legislation ponied up more than $2 million of the nearly $12 million in speaking fees Clinton hauled in between January 2014 and this March, weeks before she declared her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Lately, Clinton, who has swung to the left on numerous social issues, has gone silent on trade. She has been under pressure from liberals to side with the 44 Senate Democrats opposing those measures on grounds they would cost Americans jobs.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/19/267093/after-boosting-trade-pacts-hillary.html#storylink=cpy