posted June 10, 2015 12:40 PM            

It's even more embarrassing to have Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt woman in America running for the Presidency of the United States.

June 10, 2015
Two State Department whistleblowers threaten Hillary with cover-up charges
Thomas Lifson

Evidence of a cover-up of scandal at the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state is in the hands of a congressional committee and has been leaked to the Washington Examiner. At this point, it is a loose thread, not a smoking gun. But loose threads do have the potential to unravel fabric, and it is clear that Hillary Clinton wove a fabric at State that included lying to the public about a video causing the Benghazi massacre and decisions favorable to major donors to her family foundation.

Two whistleblowers – people who came forward with evidence of scandal – have now revealed wrongdoing. Whistleblowers enjoy some degree of legal protection, and if they are able to implicate higher-ups, there is always the potential for congressional investigators to flip one or more higher-ups, offering immunity in return for testimony implicating the top people. That has got to be a worrisome blip on Hillary Clinton’s radar screen, for there are people in her thrall (cough – Huma Abedin, Sidney Blumenthal) who have acted as hench-persons and may be targets.

The specific loose thread involves removing material from an inspector general’s report. Sarah Westwood writes in the Examiner:

State Department Inspector General officials edited out passages of a high-profile report in 2013 that could have embarrassed Hillary Clinton just days before she quit President Obama's Cabinet.

The officials excised details of a cover up of misconduct by Clinton's security team.

The edits raise concerns that investigators were subjected to "undue influence" from agency officials.

First key point: the security team monitors the secretary 24/7. They know who is in her bedroom, for instance, and who meets with her in non-public settings. If there is dirt, they know about it.

We know about the earlier draft that was censored because of a man named Richard Higbie, a senior criminal investigator at the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, who provided the uncensored report to several members of Congress and multiple committees, as well as to the Examiner. Higbie is currently suing the State Department for alleged retaliation (a big no-no under whistleblower protection laws). Higbie alleges widespread cover-ups:

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security's special investigations unit "lacks a firewall to preclude the [diplomatic security] and Department of State hierarchies from exercising undue influence in particular cases," the published version stated.

The same final version mentions only that "the perception exists among knowledgeable parties that external influences have negatively affected some [special investigations division] investigations."

But an earlier version dated November 16, 2012, reveals much greater detail about internal investigations that were blocked by top State Department officials.

"Inspectors learned in conversations with Department employees…that in some cases superiors in [diplomatic security] and in senior levels of the State Department have prejudiced the commencement, course and outcome of [special investigations division] investigations," the early draft said.

"Sources referred to [diplomatic security] sometimes circling the wagons to protect favored [diplomatic security] rising stars from criminal charges or from embarrassing revelations that could harm a promising career," the draft continued.

"One case, which triggered outraged comment from several [special investigations division] sources, relates to allegations that a Regional Security Officer engaged in serious criminal conduct including sexual abuse of local embassy staff during a series of embassy postings. Sources also reported that a senior [diplomatic security] official successfully protected some agents on the Secretary's Detail from investigations into misbehavior while on official trips," the November 16 draft said. (snip)

Many of the bureau of diplomatic security officials whom the investigators probed "often return to work" with firearms in tow.

Some investigators "pointedly carry their own firearms constantly" while in the State Department office because they are afraid of "a nasty elevator confrontation."

Sounds a lot like the Secret Service hookers in Colombia scandal. But there is even worse stuff alleged:

Another passage that was removed from the public report suggests officials in Clinton's office may have protected an ambassador from a child abuse investigation.

"Sources reported that a senior '7th Floor' Department official ordered [diplomatic security] to stop the investigation of an ambassador accused of pedophilia, and another such senior official had [diplomatic security] stop an investigation of an ambassador-designate," the draft reads.

The seventh floor is the location of the secretary of state's office, as well as the offices of the deputy secretary and the undersecretaries, according to the State Department's website. If any of these details were removed because of exculpatory information, this is never stated.

The same section of the final report, titled "Need for Independence," makes no reference to the pedophilia allegations or the sexual abuse charges that were covered up by State Department staff. (snip)

Hand-written comments in the margin of a November 27, 2012, draft of the report suggest there was an internal struggle over what information should be included in the document.

Next to the passage describing an investigation into the pedophilia allegations against an unnamed ambassador, for example, someone typed: "[T]hese allegations must be deleted." Someone else wrote, "Why?" in the space below.

While the question wasn't answered in a nearly identical draft that followed on November 28, the offending language was missing from a December 4, 2012, version of the report.

Protecting a pedophile ambassador is political dynamite. Ambassadors are appointed by presidents and tend to be either career diplomats or big donors. Keeping the lid on disclosure of such a scandal, and potentially enabling more child abuse to protect a crony, is serious material.

So how did this cover-up get by the inspector general, the person charged with uncovering misbehavior and insulated from control by the management hierarchy? Well, the answer is that the post of IG was left vacant during Hillary’s tenure. In place of a genuine IG was an interim IG named Harold Geisel.

Geisel may well the guy who was leaned on. If the investigators get leverage on him (a big if), he may be able to sing to protect his own hide.

Evidence exists that this is a big scandal, considering what happened to the first whistleblower:

Allegations that high-level State Department officials had stymied diplomatic security investigations first surfaced in 2013 when Aurelia Fedenisn, a former investigator in the State Department inspector general's office, told CBS that the February 2013 inspector general report had been heavily edited before its release.

Jen Psaki, then a spokeswoman for the State Department, said in response to the CBS report that "the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct...in any case is preposterous."

Fedenisn hired a Dallas-area law firm to represent her against the State Department after she was reportedly subjected to intimidation due to her whistleblower status.

That law firm was the victim of a break-in just weeks after the CBS report was published. The pair of thieves took only computers and files that contained information about Fedenisn, leaving untouched valuable items that included silver bars, the local Fox affiliate in Dallas reported.

Wow! Quite a coincidence – burglars taking away the files and leaving valuables behind. A veritable "third-rate burglary."

posted June 10, 2015 02:10 PM            

The word "Most" has nothing to do with it. It's your way of distracting from the truth that contradicts your silly belief.

posted June 11, 2015 11:20 AM            

If you knew what MOST means, you'd know that.

posted June 11, 2015 05:16 PM            

quote:

---

Why are you hiding Pew's response? If Pew agreed with you, that proof would be front and center HERE!

---

Why would Pew respond when the answer is already given? The evidence is all there, and it's all been given to you on several occasions. You just keep sticking your head in the sand, and acting like you won a debate you clearly lost over and over again. Why don't you write Pew, and see 1) if they respond, and 2) whether they agree with your misunderstanding of their poll?

posted June 12, 2015 08:37 AM            

You believe you only have to say something for it to be true. You've lost every single discussion on this site where you were a participant.

You're the delusional dude who argued that terrorists were "ballsy" for killing unarmed civilians.

You're the delusional dude who argued America...and Americans oppressed and repressed Iraqi citizens by not sending water treatment plants to Iraq...while Saddam was building palaces and killing Iraqi citizens there.

You're the delusional dude who argued Bush rushed to war...after only 12 years of Saddam's violations of his "cease fire" agreement.

You're the delusional dude who argued Bush intimidated and harassed CIA personnel to find him a reason to go to war in Iraq by altering intelligence reports.

You're the delusional dude who argued Bush was a murderer under the 6th Commandment of the Old Testament.

You're the delusional dude who told LindaLand members you knew more about.."how they are" than they do!

You're the delusional dude who clings to your Man Made Global Warming Religion well after the jury is in that Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by con artists and fraudsters.

You're the delusional dude who believes the Pew Polling organization has to conform their poll results to your standards.

You are the delusional dude who in every way that matters, is an extremist.

You're the delusional dude who belives words mean whatever you want them to mean but you still don't have a working definition for the word MOST. You think the word MOST means ALL or almost ALL.

Perhaps some day mental health professionals will be able to cure your delusions of Grandeur and others but I'm not holding my breath.

posted June 14, 2015 11:14 AM            

Good point! When THEY deviate from reality...spewing lies they claim are truth, it's time to tune THEM out and turn THEM off.

"As Bernie Sanders pointed out TO the press, how much the Clintons receive for speaking is not the point, but why anyone pays such prices for any speaker."

Oh, I can answer that one.

Heads of corporations and foreign governments who paid the Clintons millions in speaking fees and donated more than $100 MILLION to the Clinton Foundation were BUYING INFLUENCE...which was what..and IS what the Clintons were and ARE selling. Call it..PAY TO PLAY and it's especially appalling and corrupt when a high level member of the US government uses her position to enrich herself and her family...on the public's dime.

posted June 14, 2015 11:20 AM            

In an inspiring speech yesterday, Hillary Clinton remarked (in a white voice, this time), " I’ve been called many things by many people." Since Mrs. Clinton brought up the subject, I thought we'd review some of the things she's been called

1) A hypocrite. Mrs. Clinton constantly talks about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor, while she and her husband rake in tens of millions of dollars for speeches and hundreds of millions for their Foundation, which seems to collect a lot of money but seems to have trouble spending very much of it on, you know, actual poor people.

2) Insensitive to women and girls. Mrs. Clinton has stood by while her husband had an adulterous affair with a White House intern, was accused of abusing a second woman, and was accused of raping antoher.

3) Old. Mrs. Clinton portrays herself as the candidate of change, but she will be 72 years old at the end of her first term.

4) Liar. Mrs. Clinton has lied repeatedly, about scandals ranging from the Rose Law Firm records to Whitewater to her claim that Monica Lewinsky scandal was a "right wing conspiracy." Most recently she claimed she used a private email to keep all her emails on one device, when we since learned that she has more than one device for email.

5) A flipflopper. We hadn't heard from Mrs. Clinton about amnesty or gay marriage until Obama came out in favor of them. Now Mrs. Clinton is fully in favor of both these things, even though her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

6) Incompetent. Our Ambassador to Libya was killed while Mrs. Clinton was negligent both in making sure our embassy had enough security and her inaction during the night of the crisis.

7) A tool of foreign powers. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton approved a deal to let the Russians buy a large share of American uranium mines, after receiving a large donation to her charity.

8) Worse than useless. Iran continued to enrich uranium, Russia invaded Ukraine,and the Middle East fell apart on Mrs. Clinton's watch.

9) Untrustworthy. Poll after poll indicates the majority of Americans consider her dishonest.

10) Inauthentic. Hillary tries to portray herself as a common person. Just look at the following photos of her, where she portrays herself as a regular woman having a drink with the fellows.

The guy watching Hillary sure looks like he's having fun!

In this photo it looks like her eyes are going to burst!

How's that for a look of disgust on the face of the guy watching Hillary "chug-a-lug" that mug of beer!

posted June 17, 2015 10:18 AM            

When it comes to fake Twitter followers, Hillary Clinton is winning the presidential race by a landslide. Clinton has more fake followers and a higher ratio of bogus Twitter fans than any of the other main 2016 presidential contenders, a Vocativ analysis shows.

On the other end of the scale, the candidates with the lowest percentage of fake Twitter followers are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Contrary to what one might guess from his reputation for extravagant self-promotion, Trump’s 2.6 million Twitter followers are 90 percent real people. Only 311,388 were deemed fake by the analysis using the tool TwitterAudit.

Bernie Sanders was tied for the highest ratio of authentic followers—90 percent of his 300,000-plus followers are real people. Then comes Gov. Jeb Bush with 89% of his followers registering as real. On the bottom of the Twitter list is Clinton, with a whopping 35 percent of her 2.3 million Twitter followers coming up as fake.

posted June 24, 2015 12:40 PM            

That doesn't even begin to cover the range of Hillary's political problems.

Let's add...grossly incompetent to that mix.

‘Clinton Cash’ author demolishes Hillary’s self-defense
Peter Schweizer
June 22, 2015

Grave incompetence or brazen dishonesty?

Those are the only two conclusions one can reasonably come to after reviewing Hillary Clinton’s stunning Sunday interview on local New Hampshire TV.

When WMUR local TV host Josh McElveen asked Clinton why her State Department greenlit the transfer of 20 percent of all US uranium to the Russian government, Clinton claimed she had no involvement in her own State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium One to Russia.

“I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,” said Clinton.

The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium — the stuff used to build nuclear weapons — to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?

Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary’s statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.

First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation, including Clinton Foundation mega-donor and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million.

Since 2005, Giustra and Bill Clinton have frequently globetrotted together, and there’s even a Clinton Foundation initiative named the Clinton-Giustra initiative.

But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge that a man who made a nine-figure donation to her foundation was deeply involved in the deal? Nor eight other mining executives, all of whom also donated to her foundation?

Second, during her Sunday interview, Clinton was asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech delivered in Moscow. Hillary’s response? She dodged the question completely and instead offered this blurry evasion.

“The timing doesn’t work,” said Clinton. “It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state.”

Hillary added that such “allegations” are being “made by people who are wielding the partisan ax.”

The reason Hillary ignored addressing the $500,000 direct payment from the Kremlin-backed bank to her husband is because that payment occurred, as the Times confirms, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.”

And as for her comment that the timing of the uranium investors’ donations “doesn’t work” as a damning revelation: In fact, the timing works perfectly.

As “Clinton Cash” revealed and others have confirmed, Uranium One’s then-chief Ian Telfer made donations totaling $2.35 million that Hillary Clinton’s foundation kept hidden. Telfer’s donations occurred as Hillary’s State Department was considering the Uranium One deal.

Third, Clinton correctly notes in the interview that “there were nine government agencies who had to sign off on that deal.” What she leaves out, of course, is that her State Department was one of them, and the only agency whose chief received $145 million in donations from shareholders in the deal.

Does she honestly expect Americans to believe she was simply unaware that the deal was even under consideration in her own State Department?

Moreover, is that really the leadership statement she wants front and center heading into a presidential campaign? That in the critical moment of global leadership, with the Russians poised to seize 20 percent of US uranium, she was simply out to lunch?

Perhaps a review of her emails would settle the accuracy of her Sunday claim. But, of course, she erased her emails and wiped clean the secret server housed in her Chappaqua home.

To be sure, like those emails, Hillary Clinton wishes questions about her role in the transfer of US uranium to the Russian government would simply vanish.

But that’s unlikely. A recent polling memo by the Republican National Committee finds that the uranium transfer issue is “the most persuasive message tested” and one that “severely undercuts her perceived strength of resume.”

Hillary’s Sunday comments only served to elevate and amplify the need for serious answers to axial questions.

In the absence of such answers, Americans are left to believe only one of two potentialities regarding her involvement in the transfer of 20 percent of US uranium to Vladimir Putin: She was either dangerously incompetent or remains deeply dishonest.
http://nypost.com/2015/06/22/clinton-cash-author-demolishes-hillarys-self-defense/

posted June 25, 2015 04:26 PM            

While most of your points are debatable I think calling Hillary old is a born loser. But suitably small minded for the converted you preach to.

Speaking of flipflops when Scott Walker was up for election he refused to reveal his inclination to sign Wisconsin's new shiny anti abortion law...despite the fact that it was he who called for its creation.

Half the Repub runners dont know what to do with their push for a more Christian govt since Fox called Pope Francis the most dangerous man on Earth, and the Pope called out the military industrial complex and those who get rich on warmongering.

Trump "i have a good relationship with the blacks " has now insulted Mexicans as well and cost Miss USA a big chunk of exposure in one small statement.

And Jeb Bush is touting his brother as a great advisor on foreign policy. .guess he's counting on the Fluoride Vote? Those whose memories only cover a couple of years..

posted June 25, 2015 10:54 PM            

Hillary is too corrupt and incompetent to be President.

If there's a women who's qualified to be President...and there's several, it's not Hillary.

Of the candidates who have declared they are running for President, think Carly Fiorina!

This is a woman who started her business career as a secretary and advanced...on her merits to CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

Hillary has never run anything...like the Marxist Messiah, Barack Hussein O'Bomber.

Age is not the deciding factor.

Competence and character ARE the deciding factors.

posted June 26, 2015 02:27 PM            

Guess you forgot it was called the "Tech Bubble"...and it finally burst.

NASDAQ may have gone down 26% but the NASDAQ is composed of a hell of a lot more than tech companies. Tech companies got creamed because they were way overvalued.

Just as the "Housing Bubble" finally burst...and home prices fell out of the sky, losing, on average half their market value.

Oh yeah, that's what CEOs do when business is bad. They lay people off. Of course leftist droolers wouldn't know CEOs have a LEGAL fiduciary responsibility to holders of their stocks.

So, we have Carly Fiorina who worked her way up from secretary to head the biggest computer manufacturer in the world...vs

posted June 26, 2015 05:11 PM            

In 2010 she failed, along with Meg Whitman, to buy herself onto the "Board" in California.

posted July 04, 2015 10:45 AM            

She built HP into the biggest technology corporation in the WORLD!

posted July 04, 2015 10:53 AM            

Air Clinton RICO evidence in court, watchdog demands

'Multiple acts of racketeering activity for bribery, money laundering, obstruction of justice'
Published: 13 hours ago

A well-known Washington watchdog who has sued the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for allegedly running a criminal enterprise is telling a federal court it would be wrong to dismiss the case without even looking at the evidence.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch brought the complaint and now has filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

A federal court in Florida already has scheduled a trial for early next year.

“This is a classic RICO lawsuit,” Klayman argues in his newest filing, “Indeed … few people – if any – can even attempt to refute the hard evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation have over a 10-year history of actually selling government access and influence in exchange for hard cash to fill their coffers and the coffers of their foundation, which not coincidentally, as pled, does not operate as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization but instead operates as defendants Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own alter-ego in furthering their criminal enterprise.”

He said the case is about much more than access to hidden documents, which he is seeking.

“The production of documents at issue is relevant because they evidence a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … created and further by each of the defendants, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, acting in concert as part of a conspiracy, to extort hundreds of millions of dollars in money – that is, bribes – from individuals, entities and persons upon which the defendants have bestowed favors and gratuities, principally in the form of granting waivers to do business with Iran. ”

The allegations, he explained, set “forth all of the operative facts to plead a valid RCIO claim.”

He said the case “must proceed expeditiously” because of a discovery deadline of Sept. 28 and the trial date of Jan. 25, 2016.

“Defendants’ attempts to delay discovery are as transparent as their non-meritorious motions to dismiss. Needless to say, the court should not accept defendants’ lack of reasoned analysis of the factual content of” the complaint,” he wrote.

“It is simply too early to dismiss any portion of plaintiff’s claims where so much information is alleged to provide both notice and a likelihood that more material and predicate acts will be learned through discovery.”

The case brought by Klayman pleads “multiple acts of racketeering activity by travel in interstate or international travel for the purpose of bribery, money laundering and obstruction of justice.”

“These actions were done with the specific purpose of defrauding plaintiff and others out of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations.”

He alleges, for example, that Hillary Clinton “granted a waiver to Victor Pinchuk and his company Interpipe Group as an exemption from U.S. congressional sanctions against doing business with Iran.”

He alleges that was “as a quid pro quo for bribes disguised as donations made to The Clinton Foundation.”

He said the company “then, using the wires and mails and other illegal means fraudulently, donated $2.35 million to The Clinton Foundation.”

WND reported Klayman was urging the court to take physical custody of Hillary Clinton’s infamous private email server, because of the evidence it could contain.

In a supplement motion, Klayman said there was new relevant information to bolster his case.

Klayman submitted copies of a Washington Times report that the Clintons’ foundation “set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.”

Further, another article submitted by Klayman, from the Miami Herald, reported banks were paying huge fees to Bill Clinton for speeches at a delicate time.

“Many of the speeches and donations were made at times when the host banks were under Justice Department scrutiny. … All told, the same 11 banks have paid more than $81 billion – yes, that’s with a B – over the last six years to resolve federal investigations into alleged corruption,” the report said.

The case charges the Clintons schemed “to reap hundreds of millions of dollars personally and for their foundation by selling government access and influence.”

Klayman, for years a Washington watchdog, engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. Klayman also has taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States. Recently, he won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program and brought a case against Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order setting the case for trial comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, they were “broke,” Hillary Clinton has claimed.

But estimates are that since that time, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking. Speaking fees for Bill Clinton have been as high as $750,000.

posted July 16, 2015 09:30 AM            

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would lose to a generic Republican presidential candidate in six battleground states if the election were held today, a new poll has found.

The poll, commissioned by the conservative super PAC American Crossroads, was conducted by Vox Populi from July 7-8 of 1,670 registered voters. It found that in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia, a Republican candidate would win with 50 percent of the vote while Clinton would draw 42 percent.

The same survey in May found that in a matchup with a Republican, Clinton would lose by a 10-point margin at 41 percent compared to 51 percent.

"Despite three months of campaigning and trying to rehabilitate her image, Hillary Clinton continues to struggle in key battleground states," Ian Prior, the communications director for American Crossroads, said in a statement, according to The Hill.

"As rumors of Joe Biden's entry into the race grow, Democrats should pay very close attention to Hillary's glaring and irreparable weaknesses."

The poll also found that just 38 percent of voters in those states have a favorable view of Clinton while 53 percent have an unfavorable view. And a majority of voters surveyed, or 56 percent, say they don't trust Clinton, while 58 percent believe she would "do or say anything" to get elected.

Meanwhile, more respondents said they would prefer seeing Vice President Joe Biden as the next president in a matchup with Clinton, 34 percent compared to 30 percent.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-florida-ohio-colorado/2015/07/16/id/657350/

posted July 18, 2015 09:58 PM            

Hillary FORBIDS! Hello, Empress Hillary!

Hillary Forbids Young Supporters from Talking to Press

'This raises some warning flags for Hillary Clinton campaign that is trying to control their supporters.'

Jul 18, 2015
DANIEL HALPER

The Hillary Clinton campaign forbid young supporters from talking to the press at an event last night in Iowa:

"Here's what struck me," said Susan Page of USA Today, "when I read the coverage in the Des Moines Register this morning. Jennifer Jacobs, who's been on your show, was covering this last night. Big demonstrations outside of young people for O'Malley and Hillary Clinton. She went up to the Clinton supporters -- these are protesters for Clinton -- and they were told they were not allowed to [speak to] a reporter."

Page continued, "Now, why in the world would the campaign tell their own supporters who came out to campaign in favor Hillary Clinton ... these are the young people, college kids, for Hillary, and they've been told they can't talk to reporters. Why in the world would you do that?