POLITICS Comments turned off

The Cold Clinton Reality Why isn’t the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?

Posted By on October 28th, 2016

Hillary and Bill Clinton are asking for a third term in the White House, and voters who want to know what this portends should examine the 12-page memo written by a Clinton insider that was hacked and published Wednesday by WikiLeaks. This is the cold, hard reality of the Clinton political-business model.

Longtime Clinton aide Doug Band wrote the memo in 2011 to justify himself to lawyers at Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett who were reviewing his role and conducting a governance review of the Clinton Foundation at the insistence of Chelsea Clinton. In an email two weeks earlier, also published on WikiLeaks, Ms. Clinton said her father had been told that Mr. Band’s firm Teneo was “hustling” business at the Clinton Global Initiative, a regular gathering of the wealthy and powerful that is ostensibly about charitable activity.

Poor innocent Chelsea. Bill and Hillary must never have told her what business they’re in. If she had known, she would never have hired a blue-chip law firm to sweep through the hallways of the Clinton Foundation searching for conflicts of interest. Instead of questioning Mr. Band’s compensation, she would have pleaded with him never to reveal the particulars of his job in writing.

But she didn’t, and so Mr. Band went ahead and described the “unorthodox nature” of his work while emphasizing his determination to help “protect the 501(c)3 status of the Foundation.” That’s the part of the tax code that has allowed the Clinton Foundation to remain tax-exempt on the premise that it is dedicated to serving humanity.

Mr. Band graciously copied John Podesta, then adviser to the board, who would eventually become Hillary’s campaign chief. His helpful reply was to suggest that Mr. Band “strip the defensive stuff out” and later “go through the details and how they have helped WJC” [ William Jefferson Clinton].

POLITICS Comments turned off

Doesn’t Clinton Embarrass Democrats? In polite media society only Republicans are supposed to feel bad about their candidate.By James Freeman

Posted By on October 28th, 2016

Donald Trump wears his character flaws on his sleeve. Hillary Clinton seeks to prevent documentation of hers, even when the law requires it. Yet despite her best efforts, facts about Mrs. Clinton that are now public should trouble voters more than any of Mr. Trump’s remarks.

Not that it’s easy for Republicans to appear on a ballot with Mr. Trump, especially since media folk spend days after each controversial remark demanding responses from other GOP candidates. The objective is to force them to endorse or condemn Mr. Trump and suffer the consequences.

Fair enough, but reporters don’t force down-ballot Democrats to take a position on each new Clinton email revelation. The result is wall-to-wall media coverage focused on whether GOP voters can possibly support their candidate. But why should Republicans have all the fun? Democratic voters have every right to be ashamed of their nominee.

We’ll review some of the reasons in a moment, but first let’s consider the importance of party loyalty in this year’s presidential election. In recent polls, Mr. Trump often leads among independents. But he generally trails overall because Mrs. Clinton enjoys stronger support among Democrats than Mr. Trump does among Republicans—or because pollsters don’t believe Republicans will turn out and therefore include many more Democrats than Republicans in their survey samples.

Clearly Mr. Trump needs more Republicans to support him. This could happen if holdout Republicans break his way or if some Democrats decide they can’t stomach another era of Clinton scandals.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Grifters-in-Chief The Clintons don’t draw lines between their ‘charity’ and personal enrichment. By Kimberley A. Strassel

Posted By on October 28th, 2016

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief.

The cross-pollination is flagrant, and Mr. Band gives example after example of how it works. He and his partner Declan Kelly (a Hillary Clinton fundraiser whom Mrs. Clinton rewarded by making him the State Department’s special envoy to Northern Ireland) buttered up their clients with special visits to Bill’s home and tête-à-tête golf rounds with the former president. They then “cultivated” these marks ( Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, UBS) for foundation dollars, and then again for high-dollar Bill Clinton speeches and other business payouts. CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Ignorance is Not Bliss : Edward Cline

Posted By on October 28th, 2016

As far as the State is concerned, when it comes to reporting Muslim crimes, “mum’s the word.” The State doesn’t want you to know.

I left this comment on an October 26th Gatestone column by Soren Kern, “Germany’s Migrant Rape Crisis: Where is the Public Outrage?”:

“Where is the public outrage?” The outrage did not exist because the federal government and the local police forces withheld information about the identity of the criminals in an effort to ameliorate public opposition to the invasion of hundreds of thousands of “refugees,” most of whom were fully grown males. But now, as sporadic news stories are reporting, the German public is waking up to the stories that have been suppressed in a futile and dishonest effort to “educate” the public and not “stigmatize” whole races or religions. The government and the local police would rather “stigmatize” groups opposed to “immigration.” That policy is also beginning to fall apart, as well. In its efforts to keep Germans in the dark about the perilous situation Germans are in, it is laying the groundwork for possibly a civil war between the duped Germans, immigrants, and the government itself. What brilliance!

In the meantime, in Britain, Her Majesty’s government has seen fit to “screen” children from the Calais “jungle” – or rather hide behind physical screens their arrival and the fact that most of these “children” are advanced teenagers or full-grown males.

In Sweden, the government and the press mitigate the criminal impact of Muslim migrants on its society.

FOREIGN POLICY, POLITICS Comments turned off

Did Russian’s Half A Million To Her Advisor Influence Hillary On Iran? Americans need to know whether Hillary Clinton and Thomas Pickering put America’s interests first, or those of Russia and Iran. by Christine Brim

Posted By on October 27th, 2016

The Clinton campaign has been complaining bitterly about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s possible ties to WikiLeaks’ daily dumps of campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. My new investigative report, “Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat: Thomas Pickering and Russia’s Pipeline Sales to Iran and Syria, exposes Hillary Clinton’s own damaging ties to Russia and Iran while she was secretary of State. Her Foreign Affairs Policy Advisor Thomas Pickering was a paid director for the Russian company Trubnaya Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya (TMK) from June 30, 2009 to June 26, 2012. TMK is majority-owned by Russian billionaire oligarch Dmitry Pumpyansky, a close Putin ally.

I discovered extensive proof of TMK’s business dealings in Iran and Syria while Pickering was on its board, including TMK sales of oil and gas pipelines to Iran that were specifically prohibited under U.S. laws and executive orders. Pickering was deeply involved with TMK. According to TMK records, he attended 143 of the 145 board meetings. Pickering is estimated to have been paid more than half a million dollars for his service to TMK from 2009 to 2012, based on TMK’s compensation rules. He has since claimed to have donated it all to an unnamed charity.

Clinton’s, President Obama’s, and Pickering’s interests converged during the time Pickering was on TMK’s board of directors. Clinton had announced the Russian “reset” in March 2009; Obama pleaded with Iran for a new beginning two weeks later; and Pickering joined TMK, which was publicizing its sales to Iran and Syria in numerous documents, in June of that year.
Yes, We Sell to Countries Americans Sanction

Pickering combined his commercial, nonprofit, and policy roles into a seamless whole, all with the common goal of ending economic sanctions against Iran and reversing U.S. Iran policies. He was Clinton’s foreign affairs policy advisor and email correspondent, a board member for two Iranian advocacy groups, a paid consultant to Boeing (now a $25 billion Iranian aircraft contractor, thanks to Pickering’s advocacy), a well-known “behind-the-scenes” negotiator with Iranian representatives, and a paid director for a Russian company—TMK—that was actively exporting pipelines to Iran and Syria.

FOREIGN POLICY, POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shadow Diplomat’ Ran Big-Money China, Russia Deals by John Hayward

Posted By on October 27th, 2016

A new report from the Center for Security Policy, called “Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat,” concerns former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who last made the news by forgetting to mention he was getting paid by Boeing while lobbying for the Iran nuclear deal, which just happens to have facilitated a $25 billion deal for Boeing.

Author Christine Brim has uncovered a number of other interesting connections between Pickering, unfriendly foreign interests, and the titanic Clinton money machine.

The Center for Security Policy says the report “reveals Pickering’s overlapping roles: as Clinton’s Foreign Affairs Policy Advisor, as an Advisory Board member for two Iranian advocacy groups, as a paid Director for a Russian firm selling pipeline to Iran and Syria, as a paid consultant to Iranian aircraft contractor Boeing, and as a Senate committee hearing witness, all with a common goal of ending economic sanctions on Iran and reversing U.S. Iran policies.”

Pickering’s ties to that Russian firm, Trubnaya Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya, are even stronger than the consulting relationship he enjoyed with Boeing when the Iran deal was under construction. He was a paid director for a company that is majority-owned by a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, billionaire Dmitry Pumpyansky. It doesn’t look like one of those purely ceremonial positions companies sometimes hand out to celebrities and politicians, either, as records indicate Pickering was paid over half a million dollars and was a faithful attendee at board meetings where over $3.2 billion in transactions were approved.

The TMK connection loops back around to Iran, as Brim reports the company had business relationships with Iranian and Syrian entities that were banned under U.S. Treasury Department protocols. (Those rules clearly prohibit Americans from doing business with “Specially Designated Nationals” through foreign companies, although “Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat” goes into detail on loopholes Pickering may have exploited.)

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Lessons from the Highway of Death Elites’ impossible dreams often become dangerous realities for more vulnerable and distant ‘others.’ By Victor Davis Hanson

Posted By on October 27th, 2016

California State Route 99 is the north-south highway that cuts through the great Central Valley. And it has changed little since the mid-1960s.

A half-century ago, when the state population was about 18 million — not nearly 40 million as it is today — the 99 used to be a high-speed, four-lane marvel. It was a crown jewel in California’s cutting-edge freeway system.

Not now.

The 99 was recently ranked by ValuePenguin (a private consumer research organization) as the deadliest major highway in the nation. Locals who live along its 400-plus miles often go to bed after seeing lurid TV news reports of nocturnal multi-car accidents. Then they wake up to Central Valley radio accounts of morning carnage on the 99.

The 99 is undergoing a $1 billion, multi-decade upgrade to increase its four lanes to six. Promises have been made to build off- and on-ramps in place of haphazard exits and entries from the old days of cross traffic.

In many of the most dangerous southern portions of the 99, huge semi trucks hog two lanes. Speeders weave in and out of traffic. They still try to drive 70 mph in the manner you could 50 years ago when traffic was less clogged. Text-messaging drivers are now even more dangerous than the intoxicated.

The 99 is emblematic of a state in psychological and material decline.

Running parallel to the southern portion of the 99 is an underused, subsidized Amtrak passenger rail line. Not far away is yet another rail corridor, where the state is plowing up some of its best farmland to build the first link of high-speed rail. That boondoggle’s projected price tag has soared from the original $33 billion to somewhere between $60 and $100 billion — without a single foot of track yet laid.

Californians are apparently too sophisticated to allot $10 billion or so to first ensure that the state has adequate north-south freeways. In addition to the 99, state residents must also contend with the equally primitive coastal Highway 101 and the now-overcrowded Interstate 5.

All societies in decline fixate on impossible postmodern dreams as a way of disguising their inability to address premodern problems.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Clinton Transmitted Classified Information to Her Lawyers What was their security-clearance level? By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on October 27th, 2016

What was the legal rationale under which Hillary Clinton quite intentionally shared classified information with her lawyers, including David Kendall, Cheryl Mills, and Heather Samuelson?

As I outlined in last weekend’s column, we know that Clinton’s e-mails were replete with classified information. According to the FBI, the classified e-mails included intelligence graded at the most closely guarded level: eight top-secret e-mails, and seven designated as “special access program” (SAP) information. (While FBI director James Comey’s presentation understandably left this vague, the likelihood is that seven of the eight top-secret e-mails are SAP.) Under President Bill Clinton’s 1995 executive order, top-secret intelligence is information the mishandling of which “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” The SAP designation is added when the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence could compromise critical intelligence-gathering methods or imperil the lives of intelligence sources.

That is why access to this information is so tightly restricted, and its unauthorized disclosure is routinely prosecuted.

With that as our backdrop, let’s get two things straight.

First, there is no lawyer exception to the federal criminal law that prohibits the transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons. When the government gives an official a security clearance, that does not mean any lawyer whom the official retains derivatively has one, too. The laws that make it a felony to transmit classified information to a person not authorized to have it apply whether the official transmits such information to the technician who services her private e-mail server or to her lawyers.

Second, merely having a security clearance — even a top-secret security clearance — does not make a person an authorized recipient of all classified information. Dissemination of a great deal of government intelligence, particularly if it is designated as SAP, is restricted to those officials who have been read into the program because they have a government-certified need to know the information in order to perform their duties.

RELATED: Why Hillary Clinton’s E-mail Scandal ‘Lawyers’ Are So Problematic

To take a prominent recent example, Paula Broadwell, General David Petraeus’s mistress, had a security clearance. This fact, however, was unavailing to Petraeus when he was prosecuted for disclosing his highly classified journals to her. Regardless of Broadwell’s holding of a security clearance, the transmission of the information to her was not authorized: She had not been read into the intelligence programs alluded to in the journals and did not have a certified need to know the information.

Well, on what basis did Clinton share top-secret, SAP information with her many lawyers?

It has been reported that Clinton’s principal defense lawyer, David Kendall, has a security clearance and that his firm, Williams and Connolly, has approved facilities for storing classified information, at least at some level of classification. If we assume (as I do) that these things are true, it would still have been illegal for Clinton to transmit top-secret, SAP intelligence to Kendall, and for that information to be stored at the firm.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Election Law Violation Was Hillary’s Idea Orders to use Donald Duck to foment violence at Trump rallies came straight from the top. Matthew Vadum

Posted By on October 27th, 2016

Democrat Hillary Clinton personally authorized illegal dirty tricks operations against Republican Donald Trump’s campaign, according to top Democrats appearing in undercover video.

In the third Hillary-related video released by ACORN slayer James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas Action Fund this past Sunday (Oct. 23), Clinton is directly implicated in a scheme to use Donald Duck to mock Trump and troll his supporters at Trump campaign rallies.

Among Disney cartoon characters Donald Duck was a natural choice. After all, his name used to appear regularly on voter registration documents when Bill and Hillary Clinton’s favorite community organizing group, the now-defunct ACORN, hired hobos and felons to go on voter-registration drives.

Earlier this year Democrats in Donald Duck costumes started appearing at Trump events across America. Costumed individuals would walk around carrying signs. One said, “Trump ducks releasing his tax return.”

This cutesy publicity stunt isn’t necessarily the problem, though. The problem is that Hillary Clinton ordered it and apparently broke the law by coordinating with a tax-exempt nonprofit group.

Prominent in the video is political organizer Robert Creamer who is very high up in the Democratic Party’s hierarchy. He has reportedly visited the Obama White House 342 times, including 47 meetings with Obama personally.

One of the visits took place in Obama’s personal living quarters.

“It’s a very big deal that Creamer visited the president’s residence in the White House,” a former senior White House employee told FrontPage in an interview. “White House employees can work there for years and never visit the residence.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

They Knew: The End of the Clinton Lies Begins There’s only one lie left. Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on October 27th, 2016

During Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign, Neera Tanden was described as “the wonk behind Hillary.” A close associate of the Clintons, Tanden helped shape policy for both Bill and Hillary. Then she switched to playing that role for Obama.

While Hillary’s email scandal broke, Tanden was in charge of the Center for American Progress, a radical left-wing group that had been described as “Obama’s Idea Factory.” And she was chatting with John Podesta, the top Clintonite who had founded CAP. Podesta had co-chaired the Obama-Biden Transition Project. Neera Tanden would co-chair the Hillary-Kaine Transition Project under Podesta who headed up Hillary’s presidential campaign. Podesta had helped shape the last eight years of national politics through Obama and Tanden looked forward to shaping the next eight under Hillary.

And what did they think of Hillary? Did they believe their defenses of her wrongdoing?

Podesta and Tanden ridiculed her associates for the cover-up. “Why didn’t they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy,” she wondered. “Unbelievable,” Podesta wrote. “They wanted to get away with it.”

Since the early days of the email scandal, we’ve been treated to the sordid rituals of feigned innocence. The issue was a non-issue, Clinton surrogates were quick to assure us. And even if it was, no one did anything wrong. The flies on the wall knew better though and now we can all be the flies on the wall.

Away from the cameras and the briefings, the Clintonites held their bosses in contempt. Neera Tanden, a supposed close associate of Hillary, blasted her instincts as “suboptimal” and described her as suffering from a character problem. And there was never any doubt as to what was going on.

Tanden ridiculed Cheryl Mills for the mess. Mills fired off an email to Podesta warning that Obama’s denial wouldn’t hold up. “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov,” she warned.

Obama had offered his usual denial claiming to have only learned about the scandal from the media. The revelation that Hillary had emailed Obama from her illegal address would show that he had lied. But meanwhile his people struggled to reinvent his lie by claiming that while he knew about her illegal address, he didn’t know that it was illegal. This put his lie in line with Hillary’s lie.