Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy?

[Bit_Happy]

Peter Schweizer Appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to Discuss CLINTON CASH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=11&v=8hc6ESwRf8c

The best part was afterwards when they had on the Clinton defense team in one, Donna Brazile, who's a former strategist for them back during Bill's reign in the 90s. She was just in a tizzy trying to obfuscate the facts. The Clintons are smart and they knew the way they were going to play this before they even started when she became SOS. Bill took similar money from the Chinese and Asian conglomerates back during his presidency and then had one of his Chinese pointmen as the head of the Commerce department granting export waivers on sensitive communication and advanced weapons systems which allowed them to flow over to China to help upgrade their satellite and missile technology - which was a major case for bribery and treason that should've been his demise during the impeachment. Instead, the so-called independent counsel just went after him for perjury and obstruction of justice that carried no meaningful penalties. This will ultimately be the extent of any punishment, or slap on the hand, that Hillary may get, not what she deserves. It's obviously serious or you wouldn't have democratic operatives nervous or concerned about it.

That matches much of what I remember about Bill's serious crimes.
Years ago, I met a Republican grassroots activist who was very active in he early movement to impeach Clinton. There was strong evidence of serious crimes (treason) and instead the impeachment was turned into a "sex circus" starring Monica and Her Amazing Cigar. Searching....
What? Is this a joke or real?  
Hillary Furious American’s Send Thousands of Cigars to Her Office!

"Thousands of cigars have been sent to Hillary Clinton’s office in protest of her announcement that she will run for President in 2016, and reports are that she’s FURIOUS!
Thanks to Send Clinton Cigars (http://sendclintoncigars.com), a service that allows you to anonymously purchase and send a cigar directly to Hillary’s campaign office. Tens of thousands of American’s are blatantly reminding her of her experience the first time around in the White House."

[1714924957]

1714924957

[TheButterZone]

I trust Hillary Clinton to be/do evil.

[Wilikon]

Peter Schweizer Appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to Discuss CLINTON CASH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=11&v=8hc6ESwRf8c

The best part was afterwards when they had on the Clinton defense team in one, Donna Brazile, who's a former strategist for them back during Bill's reign in the 90s. She was just in a tizzy trying to obfuscate the facts. The Clintons are smart and they knew the way they were going to play this before they even started when she became SOS. Bill took similar money from the Chinese and Asian conglomerates back during his presidency and then had one of his Chinese pointmen as the head of the Commerce department granting export waivers on sensitive communication and advanced weapons systems which allowed them to flow over to China to help upgrade their satellite and missile technology - which was a major case for bribery and treason that should've been his demise during the impeachment. Instead, the so-called independent counsel just went after him for perjury and obstruction of justice that carried no meaningful penalties. This will ultimately be the extent of any punishment, or slap on the hand, that Hillary may get, not what she deserves. It's obviously serious or you wouldn't have democratic operatives nervous or concerned about it.

That matches much of what I remember about Bill's serious crimes.
Years ago, I met a Republican grassroots activist who was very active in he early movement to impeach Clinton. There was strong evidence of serious crimes (treason) and instead the impeachment was turned into a "sex circus" starring Monica and Her Amazing Cigar. Searching....
What? Is this a joke or real?  
Hillary Furious American’s Send Thousands of Cigars to Her Office!

"Thousands of cigars have been sent to Hillary Clinton’s office in protest of her announcement that she will run for President in 2016, and reports are that she’s FURIOUS!
Thanks to Send Clinton Cigars (http://sendclintoncigars.com), a service that allows you to anonymously purchase and send a cigar directly to Hillary’s campaign office. Tens of thousands of American’s are blatantly reminding her of her experience the first time around in the White House."

http://sendclintoncigars.com/

[Tusk]

http://sendclintoncigars.com/

Brilliant this should be a crowd funded billboard add 

The only positive foreign policy Hillary has accomplished is to boost Cuban exports to the US

[Bit_Happy]

http://sendclintoncigars.com/

Brilliant this should be a crowd funded billboard add 

The only positive foreign policy Hillary has accomplished is to boost Cuban exports to the US

We need "Hope for America" and what we get is a huge pile of smelly crap. I hope Rand Paul does well, because none of the others have much to offer.

[Pentax]

We can trust that she will avariciously pursue her own interests and those of her $$$$$ people.

We can trust that she will indignantly claim to be the champion of the middle class, women, minorities and a host of other special interest groups, all of which she will forget about once they've whored themselves to her.

I find it hard to believe that anyone, after watching these people for years, would actually vote for her.  As a society The US is well and truly fucked if this is what people are willing to vote for.

[J. J. Phillips]

I don't have any hope of someone defeating Hillary in 2016. On the bright side (sort of), I said the same thing in 2007 about 2008.

The main thing I'm wondering right now is how long the media can keep Hillary's use of a walker secret. It's hard to believe after almost a year it's still being kept under wraps.

[koshgel]

She's just as trustworthy as any other politician. So not very much.

They all have an agenda and make decisions based on who pays for their campaign. People have to be really stupid to think that any one of them give a fuck about your well-being. 

You want change? Get rich and pay $10k at a time to have lunches with senators and tell them what kind of laws you think should be changed or added.

[Chef Ramsay]

Hillary Clinton updates her logo to support same-sex marriage

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton changed her avatar on her Twitter and Facebook pages on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court will hear historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land.

The justices will indicate where they stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, or whether the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

More...http://mashable.com/2015/04/28/hillary-clinton-logo-same-sex-marriage/

Since she's got nothing, this is her answer to the bribery allegations. Get the small-minded single issue voter types and those that don't want to be called bigots to focus on this and allow Hillary to pull the wool over their eyes on what kind of leader she'd be.

[Wilikon]

Hillary Clinton updates her logo to support same-sex marriage

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton changed her avatar on her Twitter and Facebook pages on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court will hear historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land.

The justices will indicate where they stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, or whether the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

More...http://mashable.com/2015/04/28/hillary-clinton-logo-same-sex-marriage/

Since she's got nothing, this is her answer to the bribery allegations. Get the small-minded single issue voter types and those that don't want to be called bigots to focus on this and allow Hillary to pull the wool over their eyes on what kind of leader she'd be.

[Wilikon]

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation.

Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution.

The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations: The Clinton family is at the center of public suspicions over the extent of insider dealing in Washington, emblematic of concerns that corporate interests are able to influence government action by creatively funneling money to people in power.

“The dynamic is insidious and endemic to this system,” said Meredith McGhee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog group in Washington. "The fact is that the wealthiest .01 percent on the outside of government believes -- fervently -- that by paying speaking fees, or making campaign contributions, that it can gain access and influence."

Rules Do Not Apply

Federal ethics rules aim to discourage officials and their spouses from accepting gifts from interests “seeking official action” from a government agency. But the rules do not apply to speaking fees, said Craig Holman an advocate for tightened ethics structures at Public Citizen, a watchdog group in Washington.

The rules at issue “wouldn’t have any regulations that would make this illegal, unless of course there were a quid pro quo, and that would be a violation of the bribery laws,” Holman told IBTimes. “There isn’t an ethics rule that prohibits someone like Bill Clinton from charging exorbitant speaking fees and collecting those speaking fees from businesses that have interests before the administration.”

But regardless of the rules, he added, the dynamic through which President Clinton has been able to profit from the same companies eager to gain the ear of his wife’s department “poses a very troubling conflict-of-interest situation that is going to continue to dog Hillary over the course of the campaign."


http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107

[koshgel]

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation.

Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution.

The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations: The Clinton family is at the center of public suspicions over the extent of insider dealing in Washington, emblematic of concerns that corporate interests are able to influence government action by creatively funneling money to people in power.

“The dynamic is insidious and endemic to this system,” said Meredith McGhee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog group in Washington. "The fact is that the wealthiest .01 percent on the outside of government believes -- fervently -- that by paying speaking fees, or making campaign contributions, that it can gain access and influence."

Rules Do Not Apply

Federal ethics rules aim to discourage officials and their spouses from accepting gifts from interests “seeking official action” from a government agency. But the rules do not apply to speaking fees, said Craig Holman an advocate for tightened ethics structures at Public Citizen, a watchdog group in Washington.

The rules at issue “wouldn’t have any regulations that would make this illegal, unless of course there were a quid pro quo, and that would be a violation of the bribery laws,” Holman told IBTimes. “There isn’t an ethics rule that prohibits someone like Bill Clinton from charging exorbitant speaking fees and collecting those speaking fees from businesses that have interests before the administration.”

But regardless of the rules, he added, the dynamic through which President Clinton has been able to profit from the same companies eager to gain the ear of his wife’s department “poses a very troubling conflict-of-interest situation that is going to continue to dog Hillary over the course of the campaign."


http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107

Are you so jaded that you think Republican politicians don't do the same thing?

[iCEBREAKER]

Are you so jaded that you think Republican politicians don't do the same thing?

Of course money for access is how it works, although not many Republicans have multi-billion dollar "Global Initiatives" while their spouse is Sec of State Dept.  More of "the same thing" is different.

In this specific instance the Clintons may have broken laws, and the entire thing reeks of impropriety and conflicts-of-interest.

We're sick of their endless drama.  It's like a rerun of a bad sitcom from the 90s.

[Wilikon]

Are you so jaded that you think Republican politicians don't do the same thing?

Of course money for access is how it works, although not many Republicans have multi-billion dollar "Global Initiatives" while their spouse is Sec of State Dept.  More of "the same thing" is different.

In this specific instance the Clintons may have broken laws, and the entire thing reeks of impropriety and conflicts-of-interest.

We're sick of their endless drama.  It's like a rerun of a bad sitcom from the 90s.

Very well put. People who are "so jaded" don't realize saying "Both parties do it. So what? Why are you pointing this to me? I'll vote for her because the other one, the one I hate, does it too" is not how a free society should work...

A kingdom with entitled courtesans like the clintons maybe?

 

[Wilikon]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations



--------------------------------------------------
...'Jaded'...

[Wilikon]

WaPo: Three Pinocchios for latest Clinton Foundation excuse



A particularly slimy series of “coincidences” led (a) the State Department to allow interest in half the world’s uranium to fall into Russian hands while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, (b) Bill Clinton to pocket $500,000 from the bank financing the deal, and (c) the Clinton Foundation to rake in millions from the people who cashed out in the Uranium One deal. At the center of the Uranium One deal was Frank Giustra, the Canadian contributor who poured cash into the foundation during Hillary’s tenure at State. In an attempt to deflect attention from the nexus of cash and influence, Clinton Foundation exec Maura Pally declared that the organization couldn’t disclose the donors to the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership because Canadian law prevented it:


Like every contributor to the Foundation, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) is publicly listed as a donor on our website. But as it is a distinct Canadian organization, separate from the Clinton Foundation, its individual donors are not listed on the site. This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency — unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.


As Morgen Richmond discovered almost immediately, that didn’t keep them from posting the donors on their website in 2009.  The Washington Post’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee dug a little deeper, and found that Pally’s not telling the truth:


The Clinton Foundation said “all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor” under Canadian law. It is unclear whether the foundation is referring to federal or provincial law. If it is the later, the statement would be accurate.

However, the charity’s own memo says it is operating under federal obligations and its fiduciary duty for its board of directors. The federal law does not explicitly ban charities from disclosing individual donor names without permission. In fact, it only applies to commercial use of personal information. The public release of donor names for a non-commercial purpose is not prohibited. The charity, however, interprets the release of donor records as “bartering,” which experts have questioned.


Lee gives the Clinton Foundation three Pinocchios for this lame attempt to deflect attention through a non-sequitur. The issue isn’t with the donors we don’t know (at least for now), but with the donor we do know. Giustra made a fortune off the staged sell-off of Uranium One to ARMZ, which got folded up immediately into Putin-linked Rosatom almost immediately after the final acquisition in January 2013. The Russian interests who made out all started off by kicking a lot of money to the Clintons.

Speaking of foreign interests, Andrew Kaczynski takes us on a nostalgic visit to 1996, when the Clintons expressed all sorts of alarm about foreign cash in American politics. As long as it wasn’t coming their way, that is:


Bill Clinton himself, however, once was the person attacking his opponents for taking money tied to foreign interests. In the midst late of the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign against Bob Dole, the issue of foreign interests improperly funneling money to help Bill Clinton’s re-election efforts became an issue. Dole, seizing on reports of improper contributions attacked Democrats for taking money tied to foreign interests.

Clinton shot back with an ad of his own, accusing Dole of being a hypocrite in an attempt to muddy the waters.

MALE NARRATOR: Bob Dole. Desperate Attacks. President Clinton restricted foreign lobbying, fought for years for campaign-finance reform.

TEXT: Lifetime ban on foreign lobbying by top officials

MALE NARRATOR: Dole and the Republicans took $2.4 million from foreign interests. …

NARRATOR: An independent watchdog cites Dole as the senator “most responsible for blocking any serious campaign finance reform.”


It’s no coincidence that Hillary Clinton’s talking about campaign finance reform again, too. Cash for we, but not for thee … The hypocrisy never ends.



http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/29/wapo-three-pinocchios-for-latest-clinton-foundation-excuse/

[Wilikon]

The author of a book hammering Hillary Clinton says he has full-time security



The author of a controversial new book about Bill and Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that he has arranged full-time security for himself.

Asked during a Bloomberg interview if he received any death threats over his controversial book,"Clinton Cash," Peter Schweizer would only say he has "security."

"I'll just say we have security. And that security is not something that just came because we decided to have security. And we'll just leave it at that," he said.

Pressed as to whether he specifically has full-time security, Schweizer said "yes." He didn't specify what type of security he had arranged or whether he had hired a security detail.

The allegations in "Clinton Cash" have been dogging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign since last Thursday, when a number of news outlets published critical stories that were at least partially based on Schweizer's investigation.

Schweizer's book, out May 5, accuses Clinton of distributing special State Department favors in exchange for speaking fees to her husband and for donations to their nonprofit, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

In one of the most notable stories based on Schweizer's work, The New York Times called attention to the State Department's approval of a deal that sold US uranium-production rights to a Russian state agency. Many of those who stood to benefit from the deal, the story said, gave millions of undisclosed dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the time.

The Clintons and their allies have repeatedly dismissed Schweizer as a partisan hit man. In particular, Clinton's team has called attention to Schweizer's apparent lack of evidence that Clinton ever took direct action at the State Department to benefit her foundation's donors.

"'Clinton Cash' is nothing more than a tangled web of conspiracy theories backed by no actual evidence," Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin told Business Insider on Sunday.



http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-cash-peter-schweizer-security-2015-4

[RodeoX]

What bothers me is that each election cycle we end up with the same bosses to vote for. Is this really as good as we can do? Another Clinton and another Bush? What is this a European monarchy?

And the other candidates are even worse. Unqualified, ignorant, and there to enrich themselves. They should be tared and feathered not awarded the special status of making their own laws for us to obey.

I think I'm going back to voting with the Green party. 

[Wilikon]

What bothers me is that each election cycle we end up with the same bosses to vote for. Is this really as good as we can do? Another Clinton and another Bush? What is this a European monarchy?

And the other candidates are even worse. Unqualified, ignorant, and there to enrich themselves. They should be tared and feathered not awarded the special status of making their own laws for us to obey.

I think I'm going back to voting with the Green party. 

... Anything with "party" in it is corruptible... Brown party, Black party, Red party, Blue party...

[RodeoX]

What bothers me is that each election cycle we end up with the same bosses to vote for. Is this really as good as we can do? Another Clinton and another Bush? What is this a European monarchy?

And the other candidates are even worse. Unqualified, ignorant, and there to enrich themselves. They should be tared and feathered not awarded the special status of making their own laws for us to obey.

I think I'm going back to voting with the Green party. 

... Anything with "party" in it is corruptible... Brown party, Black party, Red party, Blue party...

I'm pro death penalty, and support conceal carry. Not very green, I know. 
That is the problem with a third party. By the time they have a platform that attracts an audience big enough to win they look just like the two parties we have.