Tuesday, July 26, 2016
BREAKING: LIST OF THE TOP WORST EMAILS LEAKED WIKILEAKS
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Pence introduces Trump at rally that doubles as VP audition
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Trump on Clinton Keeping Lynch as Attorney General: ‘It’s a Bribe!’
Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio
Getty
by ALEX SWOYER5 Jul 2016 Washington, DC3,031
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump suggested presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was bribing Attorney General Loretta Lynch during his campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina on Tuesday night.
“I think it’s a bribe!” Trump stated, reacting to a recent New York Times report where Clinton said she may keep Lynch on as Attorney General if she’s elected President of the United States.
“Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general,” the New York Times reported on Sunday – two days before FBI director James Comey suggested no criminal charges should be filed against Clinton for using a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.
“It’s a bribe!” Trump charged. “How can you say that?”
“I mean the Attorney General is sitting there saying, ‘If I get Hillary off the hook, I’m going to have four more years or eight more years, but if she loses, I’m out of a job.’ It’s a bribe. It’s a disgrace,” the presumptive Republican nominee challenged.
Trump spent most of his campaign rally speaking at the Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts about Comey’s press conference and the fact that no charges have been filed against Clinton.
“I thought – everybody thought – based on what was being said, she was guilty,” Trump alleged of his rival, saying it’s “really amazing” there won’t be any charges. “Today is the best evidence ever that we’ve seen that our system is absolutely, totally rigged.”
Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio
“Bernie Sanders was right about a couple of things, he’s right about the system being rigged!” Trump declared, defending Clinton’s primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). “He was waiting for the FBI primary.”
“He lost the FBI primary,” Trump joked. “Bernie, my poor Bernie!”
“I feel so badly for Bernie,” he added.
Trump said Comey called Clinton’s conduct extremely careless.
“We’re talking about serious stuff,” the billionaire added. “The laws are very explicit. Stupidity is not a reason you’re going to be innocent.”
Read More Stories About:
2016 Presidential Race, Big Government,Donald Trump, FBI, Hillary Clinton, North Carolina
Monday, June 27, 2016
Trump Campaign Details 49 Blistering Allegations about Hillary Clinton
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Daily Mail: ‘Clinton Cash’ a ‘Blistering Indictment’ of How the Clintons Got Rich from Corruption
Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com Facebook.com/SmythRadio
'Follow the money': Movie exposing secrets of how Clintons became rich after quitting the White House to be shown on eve of Hillary getting her party's nomination
By Nikki Schwab, U.s. Political Reporter For Dailymail.com17:32 20 May 2016, updated 17:45 20 May 2016
Clinton Cash' documentary is being screened at CannesProducers plan to air the blistering indictment on the eve of the Democratic National Convention - when she will be installed as candidateBased on the book by the same name, the film links money given to Bill Clinton for paid speeches to decisions Hillary Clinton made at StateIt also suggests all those contributions to the Clinton Foundation weren't pure altruism They and were meant to get the Clintons to overlook human rights violations by unsavory world leaders, movie suggests
Audiences in Cannes are getting a taste of the searing new documentary 'Clinton Cash,' which offers a harsh indictment of the paid speeches, personal favors, and personal enrichment that have accompanied Bill and Hillary Clinton through their decades in politics.
And if the movie-maker's wishes come true, so will Americans - the night before Clinton is formally named her party's White House candidate
The hour-long movie attempts to follow the money that has flowed toward Bill and Hillary Clinton since the former president left the White House, and suggests that much of it came from a cast of companies and countries seeking favorable treatment from the powerful pair.
Among the more damaging revelations in the film: out of 13 speeches ex-president Bill Clinton gave that earned more than $500,000 on the speaking circuit, 11 of them were during his wife's reign as secretary of state.
The film also probes the $1.4 million Bill Clinton got from a Nigerian newspaper to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 212, notwithstanding Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan's human rights record.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
+7
'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer narrates the new hour-long documentary of the same name, which explores foreign influence on Hillary Clinton at the State Department through donations
+7
The New York Times called 'Clinton Cash' 'the most anticipated and feared book' of the presidential election cycle - and the movie will only make it bigger
It also also lays out unsavory dealings in South Sudan, the Democratic of the Congo, and Haiti, as it constructs at thesis that regimes and companies ingratiated themselves with the Clintons through charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation and by offering hefty speaking fees to the Clintons.
Then it looks at who among the Clintons' employers had something to gain, like TD Bank, a company that backed the Keystone XL pipeline and payed $2 million for Bill Clinton speeches.
The film doesn't present hard evidence of an illegal quid pro quo, but it lays out a torrent of information for viewers to consider, and throws in images of blood-stained cash to drive the point home.
As if on cue, Hillary Clinton released a personal financial disclosure form this week that reveals she got $5 million in royalties from her 2014 book and $1.5 million in speaking fees in 2015 as she was gearing up to run for president.
Based on the book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer, the film connects the dots between donations to the Clinton Foundation or given to the ex-president for paid speeches and decisions Hillary Clinton made while being secretary of state.
'Cronyism and self-enrichment are a bipartisan affair, and Hillary and Bill Clinton have perfected them on a global scale,' Schweizer says in the film.
+7
Peter Schweizer's book and documentary links donations coming into the Clinton Foundation, along with money given to Bill Clinton for paid speeches, into policy moves Hillary Clinton made at the State Department
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Play
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time1:38
Fullscreen
The film is being shopped around at Cannes for a distributor, while the creators are looking toward a television deal too.
The plan is to air the documentary the night before this summer's Democratic National convention – at precisely the time Hillary will be trying to recover from persistent attacks by rival Bernie Sanders that she is beholden to corporate interests.
The film follows the same storylines as Schweizer's 'Clinton Cash' book, which was released right as Hillary Clinton was getting on the campaign trail last year.
At the time Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul, who was also seeking the highest office, called it 'big news' that will 'shock people.'
The New York Times said it was 'proving to be the most anticipated and feared book' of the presidential cycle thus far.
Schweizer narrates the hour-long documentary and says his investigation of the Clintons basically followed what he called the 'oldest adage in American politics.'
'Follow the money,' he noted.
While the Clintons were 'dead broke' upon leaving the White House, as Hillary Clinton once said, the couple brought in at least $136.5 million between 2001 and 2012.
Speaking fees helped pay the bills, but what was notable, Schweizer pointed out, was that while Bill Clinton had been out of office for nearly a decade, all of the sudden his speaking fees skyrocketed.
The issue that's most familiar to Americans is that of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which Hillary Clinton signed off on after one of the pipeline's major stakeholders paid her husband $2 million for speeches
Share this articleFacebookTwittere-mailSMSWhatsApp
RELATED ARTICLES
'The calendar is the calendar': Benghazi chair says investigation will conclude when all the facts are in - and he doesn't care if timing makes it seem like a hit job on Hillary 13-minute video of Hillary Clinton 'lying' over and over goes viral ¿ but YouTube wizard behind it says 'Don't worry' ¿ Trump is next! Trump's 'rape' attack on Bill Clinton: Republican says sex crime is among list of charges leveled against ex-president over conduct towards women'There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women.' The reason Hillary campaigner claims Trump's comments on women will haunt Republican candidate
+7
The documentary Clinton Cash connects the dots between Hillary Clinton's 'shocking' approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline and money given to her husband by a major stakeholder to speak
The reason? Hillary Clinton was just announced as President-elect Barack Obama's secretary of state.
The author noted that of the 13 speeches in his career that fetched the ex-president more than $500,000, 11 of them were during his wife's reign as secretary of state.
Politifact, for the record, rated this accounting as true.
From there, Schweizer looked at who was giving money to Bill Clinton, either for paid speeches or to the Clinton Foundation, and then whether those donors ever got anything in return from Hillary Clinton's State Department.
The example that's likely the most familiar to Americans revolves around the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
TD Bank, which had a stake in the pipeline project going through, had never sponsored a Bill Clinton speech before, but then suddenly moved $2 million his way.
At the same time, Schweizer pointed out, the State Department had to approve the project.
+7
The documentary also looks at some of the unsavory allies the Clintons have made around the globe, in part because those people are enriching the Clinton Foundation
Hillary Clinton soon decided to support the pipeline delaying the Obama's rejection of it.
'It was shocking,' Schweizer noted in the film. 'Organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were stunned, they wanted investigations, but everybody was mystified.'
'Nobody could understand why Hillary Clinton would sign off on this deal, particularly when she had been in favor of dealing with climate change and her boss, Barack Obama, by all indications, seemed to be opposed to this deal as well,' the writer added.
In another instance, Bill Clinton is paid $750,000 by the Swedish telecom company Ericsson, which was in trouble by the U.S. for selling equipment to Iran.
A week later, the documentary points out, the State Department ruled that Ericsson and other companies were off the hook and could provide oversight to themselves.
Beyond those cases, Clinton Cash explores some of the Clintons unsavory alliances in Africa, especially in countries where the leaders are known for civil rights abuses and corruption.
It also details the Clintons dealings in Haiti after the country's disastrous 2010 earthquake, calling what occurred 'disaster capitalism.'
READ MORE
www.politifact.c...First look at explosive Hillary documentary, ¿Clinton Cash¿ | New York Post
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
It must stop now: The media can’t allow Trump to make this election about Bill Clinton
Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016 10:21 AM EDT
(Credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking/Mike Segar/Photo montage by Salon)
Donald Trump has fired his first shots of the general election campaign. Predictably, they have nothing to do with anything that matters. In a new video released on Instagram, Trump features audio interviews with women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. Against the backdrop of shadowy audio clips, the accompanying text asks if Hillary Clinton is “really protecting women.”
We hear the voices of Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Wiley, and a clip from a 1999 Dateline interview with Juanita Broaddrick. Near the end, as the sound of Hillary Clinton’s cackle fades, the words “Here we go again” flash on the screen.
I’m no great defender of Bill Clinton. He was a competent president and did a lot of things well, but he’s also received a paats on a number of fronts. The triangulating, the serial lying, the capitulations to white Southerners – it was all transparent and nauseating. But here’s the thing: Bill Clinton isn’t running for president, and what he did with his penis 30 years ago is irrelevant.
Hillary Clinton is the nominee. To the extent that she’s aligned herself with her husband on policy issues, it’s fair game. But all the noise about Bill’s philandering is a ruse, and you can expect to hear more of it. “The Clintons collectively have dodged many, many, many bullets,” said Trump surrogate Roger Stone. “So much that was suppressed is going to get re-analyzed. So many of the things that they slipped by on will get reexamined. That’s something they should’ve counted on before getting into the race.” Translation: The goal is to make this campaign a referendum on Bill Clinton and the ’90s rather than a debate about the future.
This is a diversion. Worse still, we’ve been down this road already. As Rep. Peter King (R-NY) noted, “We’ve been here before, and for most it’s probably old news that people get a little squeamish about. Especially when he [Trump] brings it up in the abstract, he risks making the same mistake that Republicans made in 1998 when we got caught up in this stuff.” People are free to dig into Bill’s background all they want. But his sordid history has nothing to do with this election. If Trump is talking about Monica Lewinsky instead of his ethno-nationalist rhetoric or his incoherent policy positions, he’s winning.
The media has an obligation not to countenance this. This is what Trump does: stoke controversy, divert the media, control the narrative. It’s a rather naked attempt to avoid the issues. Trump blankets his opponents with insults and white noise in order to force them into the mud, where he’s most comfortable. It’s a brutally simple but effective tactic. Naturally, he lies about his motivations. “They [the Clintons] said things about me which were very nasty. And I don’t want to play that game at all. I don’t want to play it – at all,” Trump told The Washington Post. “But they said things about me that were very nasty. And, you know, as long as they do that, you know, I will play at whatever level I have to play at.”
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Dow Chemical CEO: Why Sustainability Should Be A Business PurposeFortune I Dow Chemical
LG 21.8 Cu. Ft. Bottom Mount Refrigerator with French Doors ® ...rentacenter.com
Nonsense. Trump is a one-trick pony. He knows only one level, one tone, one style. He’s a bully, and that’s all he is. A candidate who references his penis on a presidential debate stage isn’t interested in civil discourse. Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said Monday that Trump’s latest attack was part of a “strategy to try to distract from an issues-based campaign,” and he’s absolutely right. Trump founders when forced to defend his half-baked proposals; talking about Vince Foster or some other conspiracy theory ensures he doesn’t have to.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump will drag this debate to the floor and hope it stays there. There’s no other way forward for him. The Clinton campaign would do well not to play this game with Trump – it’s a no-lose proposition for him. The media, for their part, has to push back. Every time Trump mentions Bill or some sexcapade from the past, the response should be: Ok, but how will you build that wall? Or what does it mean to make America great again? Or why did you lunge into presidential politics by embracing birtherism? Or explain how you can cut a deal with Kim Jong-un? Or how can you undo the process of globalization without starting a trade war?
These are the issues that matter. Trump will do everything possible not to talk about them. If he wants to be president, the media must force him to.
Sean Illing is a USAF veteran who previously taught philosophy and politics at Loyola and LSU. He is currently a staff writer for Salon. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. Read his blog here.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Hillary Clinton keeps losing. So how come she's winning?
Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio
www.latimes.com
Bernie Sanders is on a roll. He's won the last two Democratic primaries and stands a good chance Tuesday of adding Oregon and perhaps Kentucky to his pile of victories.
Yet Hillary Clinton is likely to continue her seemingly unstoppable march to the party's presidential nomination.
How can that be?
It's not a conspiracy, as some angry Sanders backers suggest, a result of dark magic or a wrinkle in the time-space continuum. Rather, it's the rules that Democrats play by -- rules that now work to Clinton's advantage, even as they thwarted her candidacy eight years ago, when she lost a nominating fight to then-Sen. Barack Obama.
It takes 2,383 delegates to win the nomination at the party's national convention this summer in Philadelphia. Entering Tuesday's contests, former Secretary of State Clinton has 2,240 delegates to for Vermont Sen. Sanders' 1,473.
Clinton also leads Sanders in that category. She has received more than 12.5 million votes, compared with 9.4 million for Sanders. That's a lead of more than 3 million votes, according to calculations by the website Real Clear Politics.
It is theoretically possible, just as it is theoretically possible to drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than two hours --provided you go 200 mph the entire way.
Sanders must win close to 90% of remaining delegates to overtake Clinton. It's mathematically possible, but not realistic, given that Democrats award delegates on a proportional, rather than winner-take-all, basis. So even when a candidate -- in this case Clinton -- loses a contest, she won't walk away empty-handed.
Take last week's West Virginia primary. Sanders clobbered Clinton, 51% to 36%. But when delegates were divvied up, Sanders won 18 and Clinton 11. Adding in superdelegates, the results were much closer: Sanders walked away with 19 delegates and Clinton claimed 18. That means Sanders' landslide victory cut into Clinton's overall delegate lead by precisely one.
They're not faster than a speeding bullet or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Superdelegates are those who automatically get a seat at the Philadelphia convention and have the liberty to vote for whomever they please. The overwhelming majority are supporting Clinton.
Superdelegates are elected officials and other party leaders and activists. They include sitting Democratic governors and members of Congress, past presidents and vice presidents and former chairmen of the Democratic National Committee.
Because Democrats have two competing impulses. On the one hand, they fancy their party a model of inclusiveness and egalitarianism. On the other, they want to win elections.
After the party was torn asunder by the Vietnam War -- some Democrats believing Vice President Hubert Humphrey had been forced down their throats as the 1968 nominee -- leaders changed the nominating system to give more say to voters at the grass-roots level. But after the landslide defeat of George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, the feeling was some recalibration was needed, leavening the will of the people with the presumed wisdom of political insiders. Hence the birth of superdelegates.
About 15% of Democrats are free to back whomever they wish. Clinton leads Sanders among superdelegates 524 to 40.
No. She would still be ahead, 1,716 to1,433.
Yes, they were. They helped push Obama past Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, even though he barely topped her in the overall popular vote and held a much narrower lead in the delegate count than Clinton enjoys today over Sanders.
That's something a lot of Clinton supporters are asking. Sanders continues to draw big crowds, and every vote he receives and delegate he wins bolsters his case for a strong presence at the convention, including greater sway over the platform drafted as the statement of party principles heading into the fall campaign. Besides, he gets a lot more attention as an active candidate for the president than he would otherwise. Heard much from Martin O'Malley lately?
Sorry.
He maintains that if he keeps up his winning streak -- topping it off with a big victory in California on June 7 -- he will have so much momentum that superdelegates will shift to him en masse, giving him the nomination at a contested convention in Philadelphia.
You never know. But Clinton finished out 2008 on a hot streak similar to Sanders', taking five of the last eight contests, and that didn't change the minds of most superdelegates. Even though the Clinton-Obama contest was far closer, and the race much rougher than the current Democratic nominating fight, she soon abandoned her candidacy and delivered a ringing endorsement at the summer convention in Denver.
COMMENTS