Archive for Bill Clinton

Cynical? Moi?

Try not to let this destroy your faith in the integrity of the Fourth Estate:

The ABC News spokeswoman who slow-walked The Washington Free Beacon’s request for comment on George Stephanopoulos’ undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation also worked in the Clinton administration.

Heather Riley — spokeswoman for ABC News programs “Good Morning America” and “This Week” — worked in the White House press office from 1997 to 2000, according to her LinkedIn profile, and is a member of the Facebook group “(Bill) Clinton Administration Alumni.”

The Free Beacon, a conservative-leaning publication, contacted ABC News on the afternoon of May 13 to request comment on George Stephanopoulos’s previously undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation.

“I was just forwarded your email about George. I’m going to send you something,” Riley emailed later that night, according to The Free Beacon. “Want to make sure you get it in time.”

Riley later told the Free Beacon that she would deliver a statement by 7 a.m. the next morning. However, the statement did not arrive until 9:40 a.m., about 15 minutes after POLITICO published its “scoop” about the donations.

White House records show that Riley’s duties included serving as a press contact for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

So, a PR flack who lives to protect the Clintons, Stephanopoulos, was himself protected by a PR flack who lives to protect the Clintons. And it’s called news!

Howard K. Smith is spinning faster in his grave than Kristi Yamaguchi at the dramatic conclusion of her Olympic routine.

PS: Even when she doesn’t live to protect the Clintons, she—you guessed it—lives to protect the Clintons!

Prior to joining ABC News, Riley worked as a senior director of brand communications for Rodale, Inc.

The company and its charitable foundation have donated $20,000 to $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, records show. The Rodale family contributed at least $5,000 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns from 2005 to 2008.

Kim Jong Un doesn’t command such loyalty.

Comments

Stephanopoulos Syndrome

It’s like Alzheimer’s, but it strikes younger:

When Stephanopoulos invited me on his Sunday program, I knew that he had worked as a top adviser and campaign manager to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, but I didn’t know about his donations or his other ties to the foundation founded and overseen by the former president and his wife, potential future president Hillary Clinton.

If Stephanopoulos had disclosed his donations to the very foundation I was there to talk about, perhaps it would have put the aggressive posture of his interview with me in context.

But he didn’t.

And even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

For example, in his on air apology for this ethical mess, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel moderator at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

He did not disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report on in Clinton Cash, including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin, Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim — individuals whose involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to discuss.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he was a 2008 panelist at the CGI annual meeting which, once again, featured individuals I report on in the book, such as billionaire Clinton Foundation foreign donor Denis O’Brien.

ABC’s most visible news employee did not disclose that in 2009, he served as a panel moderator at CGI’s annual meeting, nor did he disclose that in 2010 and 2011, he was an official CGI member.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2013 and 2014, he and Chelsea Clinton served as CGI contest judges for awards, in part, underwritten by Laureate International Universities — a for-profit education company I report on in the book. Bill Clinton was on its payroll until his recent resignation.

It’s a wonder he can still read the teleprompter, the poor dear. His mind’s obviously gone. Who but a drooling vegetable would give 75 Gs to Bill Clinton for “children” and “deforestation” when Bill pocketed over 90% of the cash?

If you’d like to contribute toward the cure of the terrible scourge of Stephanopoulos Syndrome, I understand the Clinton Foundation is taking donations.

Comments

See No Evil

Harry Reid is proof that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king:

JOSE DIAZ BALART: Senator, let’s talk about Bill Clinton. Do you think the whole Bill Clinton global initiative is kind of taking away or putting pressure on Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Do you think Bill Clinton should step aside? Do you think if she were to win the presidency he should step aside from the Foundation?

SEN. HARRY REID: People do not understand the strength of Hillary Clinton. She’s a marvelous woman, independent, thoughtful, smart, experienced. And Bill Clinton will step down from whatever he needs to do to help his wife. The Foundation, which has done so much good around the world, Haiti, for one example, no organization other than the United States government itself did more to help than the Clinton Foundation, so I don’t know all the intricacies of what he will do and what he can’t do, but I know he’ll step aside any time he gets in the way of his wife.

Strength? I know she can hurl an ashtray (or was it a lamp?) like a 1968 Bob Gibson fastball—but a strong candidate? To belabor the metaphor, she’s revealing herself to be the Dal Maxville of 2016—all glove, no power.

But then, Reid is delusional in everything he says—the only thing the Clinton Crime Family Foundation did for Haiti was give Tony Rodham a job.

Comments (2)

And Another Thing

George Stephanopoulos said he donated $75,000 out of concerns for “deforestation”:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries

Then why didn’t he donate to organizations that worked for those causes, and not to one for the care and feeding of Hillary and Bill (and Chelsea)?

By one reckoning, only $4,500 of his $75,000 went to “help children”. Which makes Rush Limbaugh’s cynical headline “Fake Newsman Caught Giving 50 [sic] Large to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation” the most truthful statement on the story.

Stephanopoulos was paying tribute money to the Godfather. The only concern for deforestation was in paying with $100s, rather than $10s and $20s.

Comments

I’m Sorry, So Sorry

$75,000 was just an installment payment:

My first encounter with Stephanopoulos was during the 1992 New Hampshire primary, when Bill Clinton was grappling with womanizing allegations and his aide was trying to talk me out of doing a story. As a White House aide during the 1996 campaign, he gave me information—and a subsequent interview—aimed at tarnishing a former FBI agent who was making allegations about the president and the administration. Standard spinning stuff from a savvy operative.

People now forget that ABC originally hired Stephanopoulos as a liberal pundit, paired with Bill Kristol on the Sunday roundtable. But the network, impressed by his smarts and his political acumen, decided to move him into a journalistic role, first as host of “This Week” and then adding “Good Morning America” to his portfolio.

You know how Stephie got to be a “savvy operative” at the ripe old age of 30-35? By working on the Dukakis campaign at 27, followed by a job with Dick Gephardt. He stayed with Clinton through the 1996 campaign, for a full eight years of inside Democrat politics.

Who better to be an impartial journalist?

Let me be blunt: For George to give money to the Clinton Foundation, out of all possible charities, knowing full well that Hillary was gearing up to run, is a grave error in judgment. For him not to disclose this to his network or to viewers—especially when he was aggressively interviewing “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer about that very foundation—is unthinkable. And for ABC to brush this off as an “honest mistake” is embarrassing.

People already distrust the media as too liberal. A late-in-life journalist who began his career as a prominent Democrat working in the White House faces a special burden to demonstrate his independence. By donating to the Clintons’ family charity and keeping it secret, Stephanopoulos has failed that test.

In his statement of apology, Stephanopoulos said he gave the money because he cares deeply about AIDS and deforestation efforts.

I laughed out loud when I read that. The New England Patriots have mounted a more credible defense. If my wife should ever catch me in a compromising position, I’ll have to remember to cite my deep concern for deforestation.

Even a kinder, gentler BTL can’t accept this apology. In his position, I would have kept my “savvy operative” past foremost in the minds of the viewers. Not boastfully, but rather because every word I uttered, every thought I thought, would be suspect if I weren’t scrupulously open about my background. Just as they have been.

Son of a Greek Orthodox priest, and holder of an MA in Theology, where did he learn to prevaricate and obfuscate so expertly?

PS: Regular readers will know that my greatest beef is not with the individual reprobates in the Democrat/Media Complex, but with the Complex itself. ABC “News” (I’m laughing out loud as I type that) has not only excused Stephie’s “lapse”, they helped him spin it:

A worthy side note to the Stephanopoulos exposé is contained in its genesis. The story appears to have originated at the Washington Free Beacon, which asked ABC News for comment about the Stephanopoulos contributions last night. The next thing the Free Beacon knew, POLITICO had broken the story this morning. Free Beacon writer Andrew Stiles and site editor Matthew Continetti accused Stephanopoulos’ office and ABC of shipping the scoop to POLITICO. I sent email to ABC News seeking clarification on this point and did not hear back. I also asked Byers about the origin of his scoop to which he responded, “I’m not going to be able to talk about matters related to sourcing.”

If ABC News shopped the scoop, as the Beaconites claim, it wouldn’t be the first time that a news organization has been so preempted. Government and business play this retaliatory game all the time when journalists surprise them with a request for comment. What’s unbecoming is that a news organization might engage in this practice.

Come to think of it, that’s precisely the type of thing you could imagine the Stephanopoulos-era Clinton administration doing without compunction.

Exactly. But when “savvy operatives” become media whores, what is the network but a brightly lit brothel? Even Brian Williams was a career “journalist”—snort!—after interning for Jimmy Carter.

Comments

From the White House to the Outhouse

Let’s just jump straight to the latest Stephanopoulos update:

UPDATE – Stephanopoulos now says he donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation, says the donations were an error in judgment, says he was wrong not to disclose the donations to ABC and his viewers, and has recused himself from participating in the network’s 2016 New Hampshire GOP primary debate. Good enough?

That’s one honking big “error in judgement” and ginormous “oversight” in disclosure. Especially when Stephie has been hammering anyone who raised the Clinton’s shady dealings:

In a recent interview, Stephanopoulos grilled author Peter Schweizer over his potential “partisan interest[s]” in exposing the Clinton Foundation’s dodgy web of cash, concluding for viewers that no “smoking gun” proving corruption exists.

Put that smoking gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, Stephie. In a just world you and Brian Williams (and Mike Barnicle), and all the other plagiarists and fabulists would be selling pretzels in Central Park, not peddling the nightly “news”.

Comments

The Great Hillarini

Emails, billing records, corpses in Libya and Fort Marcy Park, she can make anything disappear!

The State Department said Monday it has no evidence that any actions taken by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was secretary of state were influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation or former President Bill Clinton’s speaking fees.

Ta-da!

The State Department’s comment comes as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign grapples with criticism that foreign entities traded donations to the family charity for favors at the State Department. Hundreds of paid speeches given by Bill Clinton, which can command as much as $500,000 or more per appearance, have also come under attack from Republican opponents.

Speaking during a nine-day tour of Clinton Foundation projects in Africa with his daughter, Chelsea, Clinton defended his foundation, saying there’s nothing “sinister” about getting wealthy people to help poor people in developing countries and that the organization had never done anything “knowingly inappropriate.”

Bill Clinton said 90 percent of donors give $100 or less. But over half of the donors giving $5 million or more are foreign, including foreign governments. Under pressure, the foundation recently announced it will only take money from six Western countries.

“Knowingly inappropriate” is an appropriate expression when applied to Bill Clinton, don’t you think? You’d need Madison Square Garden to contain the women with whom he has been knowingly inappropriate over the years.

If judged by man and God, the Clintons should doomed in the eyes of the former for betraying their country by selling uranium rights to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and damned in the eyes of the latter for their looting of Haiti.

I have more faith in God to get it right than I do in man—and I’m an agnostic at best.

Comments

Clinton’s Worth VS. Romney’s Net Worth

USA Today has the Clinton’s net worth at over 100 million

So how much is Hillary Clinton worth? It’s hard to determine an exact figure. The financial disclosure form she filed in 2012 as secretary of State showed she and her husband, Bill, had assets that were worth about $5.2 million to about $25.5 million with liabilities over $1 million but less than $5 million.

Since leaving the State Department, Clinton reportedly has earned as much as $200,000 for each speech made at private events. Bill Clinton earned more than $106 million in speaking fees since leaving the White House through January 2013, according to a CNN analysis.

So how much more than say 110 million have they acquired since 2013? It is difficult to get to that number.

And how did they manage to get the money? Well, people give money to The Clinton Foundation, which has but 35 employees, and which only spends 10-15% of the take (depending on which source you believe) on charities. Additionally, people pay half a million dollars or thereabouts for a speech by Bill Clinton. And by people, I usually mean governments, the Saudis, etc. A cynical blogger might assume that the Clintons have amassed a tremendous fortune through bribery. And that what they have to sell is influence, US government policy, that kind of thing.

It is easy to get an estimate of Mitt Romney’s wealth – around 250 million. How did he acquire it? Well, he built businesses and he hired thousands of people to work in them. Yes, I realize that by creating Staples, many mom and pop business supplies stores went down. But at the same time, many businesses enjoyed cheap office supplies and many people found work. We can hate on capitalism, computers and the modern world, but if you are reading this, you are “benefitting” from all that.

So why is it that this analysis of the obscene wealth the Clintons have acquired, through influence, while creating almost no jobs for anyone outside of their inner circle, isn’t being screamed about the way that the Romney wealth was? I would take the evil capitalist who created jobs over the rich, pampered political influence peddler any day. But for Americans to consider this, the media needs to bring it up.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

At Least They Gave it the Right Name

Who benefits more than Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea?

The charity run by the Clintons has raised $2 billion since it was founded in 2001 — $144.3 million in 2013 alone — but only a small fraction of the take went to its “life-saving work,” according to analysts who monitor non-profits.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.

The foundation raised $144.3 million – and spent $84.7 million in 2013 – allocating $8.8 million to grants for other organizations, Davis said. The Clinton Foundation’s own IRS tax filings show the organization spent $8.5 million, or 10 percent of all 2013 expenditures, on travel, and another $4.8 million — or 5.6 percent of all expenditures — on office supplies, Davis said, questioning whether plane tickets, hotel accommodations, ink cartridges and staplers “directly change lives.”

Who doesn’t swipe the odd packet of post-it notes or bottle of white-out from the office supply cupboard? Let he who is without sin…

Put your hand down, Bill. You’re not fooling anyone.

Organizations that rate charities on their effectiveness in spending donations on the causes they champion say gauging the Clinton Foundation is difficult, but they have raised flags.

CharityNavigator.org added the Clinton Foundation to its “watchlist,” noting the organization officials “had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.”

While maintaining its removal of The Clinton Foundation from its website is “neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity,” the Clinton Foundation is one of only 23 charities on the watchlist.

Another charity rating organization, GiveWell, said the Clinton Health Access Initiative declined in November 2012 to participate in its review process, and hasn’t since. The Clinton Health Access Initiative in 2008 and 2009 acted as a drug distribution powerhouse, purchasing $226 million in prescription drugs at a discount to distribute worldwide, a practice ended by 2012.

In 2012, the Better Business Bureau reported the Clinton Foundation did not meet the standards of an accountable charity, failing on six counts, largely because of a lack of transparent financial reporting. According to the Better Business Bureau website, the charity is again under review and a new report will be released soon.

You know who else keeps secret books? The mob.

Some of the financial reporting can be messy to follow, in part because the Clintons created separate entities, such as the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Haiti relief initiative, Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Presidential Center and the Clinton Climate Initiative.

While IRS filings show the Clintons do not receive a salary, compensation comes through other means, such as travel, speaking fees and consulting contracts.

Why don’t they just say they’re in “waste management” and be done with it?

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the government watchdog group, Sunlight Foundation, told the New York Post.

The rest of America wants to keep up with the Kardashians. Me, I can’t get enough of Clinton Family Value$.


He brought a checkbook, ha-ha! Straight cash, homie!

Comments

Shillary!

It doesn’t get much lower than conspiring to help Putin’s Russia corner the uranium market.

But this Clinton shenanigan manages to:

“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer reported on the US taxpayer money and contracts in Haiti profited Clinton Foundation donors and Clinton relatives on Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel special “The Tangled Clinton Web.”

The report then turned to Haiti’s Prime Minister at the time of the earthquake, Jean-Max Bellerive, who said that Bill Clinton had the ability to attract media attention and “I believe in his role of President of the [Interim Haiti Recovery] Commission he did well…[but] perhaps we were asking too much of President Clinton, and he has his own agenda obviously…so perhaps we were leaning too much on what he could bring.”

Fox News Senior National Correspondent John Roberts then reported on Digicel, which, according to Schweizer, was the “chief beneficiary” of an initiative to have a service that allowed money to be transferred via cell phone in Haiti pushed by the Clintons. Schweizer said, “shortly after the Clintons began reconstruction in Haiti, and began handing out contracts, sometime during that period of 2010 or 2011 he [Digicel’s owner Denis O’Brien] made a multi-million dollar contribution to the Clinton Foundation.” And that O’Brien also arranged for three “lucrative” speeches by Bill Clinton.

Schweizer then reported, “two of the speeches that Bill Clinton gives, actually, are sandwiched around Digicel being given a grant, by the taxpayers for $100,000 as part of the HMMI Award. At the same time, you have taxpayer money, $2 million being committed to the Digicel Foundation in Jamaica.”

The report concluded with Caracol Industrial Park, that received “more than $100 million” in US taxpayer money. According to Schweizer, “the three biggest beneficiaries [from the cheap labor the park provides] are actually three retailing companies closely tied to the Clintons. Gap, Target, and Wal-Mart.

Roberts also reported that building the park required kicking people in the area of their land and bulldozing their crops. One of the people interviewed by Roberts said the farmers were ordered to leave at gunpoint. He also spoke to a worker at the textile factory that is the park’s biggest tenant, who said he is paid about $5 a day.

The report concluded that there are only about 5,000 jobs at Caracol, not the 65,000 promised by the US State Department.

But this is my favorite:

He continued, discussing the mining contract in Haiti given to VCS Mining. “Tony Rodham [Hillary’s brother] meets the executives from VCS Mining in September of 2012 at a Clinton Global Initiative seminar. Three months later, the Haitian government grants the gold exploitation permit to VCS Mining. And literally within the year, Tony Rodham is placed on the board of VCS Mining,” despite Rodham’s lack of a background in either Haiti or mining.

It takes a lot of ingenuity—and a whole lotta nerve—to wring lucre from the hemisphere’s poorest nation. One reeling from an earthquake and a brand new cholera epidemic, no less.

Worse than getting into bed with Vlad the Invader? Decide for yourself: one is treason; the other just graft. But oh what graft.

Comments

War on Women Update

The survivors have PTSD:

LEWINSKY: Now I admit I made mistakes — especially wearing that beret — but the attention and judgment that I received — not the story, but that I personally received — was unprecedented. I was branded as a tramp, tart, slut, whore, bimbo and, of course, ‘that woman.’ I was known by many, but actually known by few. I get it. It was easy to forget ‘that woman’ was dimensional and had a soul…

“Tramp, tart, slut, whore, bimbo”—and that was just by women!

CAMILLE PAGLIA: […] Hillary is a mess. And we’re going to reward the presidency to a woman who’s enabled the depredations and exploitation of women by that cornpone husband of hers? The way feminists have spoken makes us blind to Hillary’s record of trashing [women]. They were going to try to destroy Monica Lewinsky. It’s a scandal! Anyone who believe in sexual harassment guidelines should have seen that the disparity of power between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime. He’s a sex criminal! We’re going to put that guy back in the White House? Hillary’s ridden on his coattails. This is not a woman who has her own career, who’s made her own career! The woman who failed the bar exam in Washington! The only reason she went to Arkansas and got a job in the Rose law firm was because her husband was a politician.

You don’t hear “cornpone” often enough.

And it’s true about her failing the DC bar exam:

In his biography of Hillary Clinton, former Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein notes that in the summer of 1973, 817 people took the Washington, D.C., bar exam; 551 of them passed. Hillary Rodham was not one of them.

“For the first time in her life she had flamed out — spectacularly, given the expectations of others for her, and even more so her own,” Bernstein wrote.

Bernstein said Clinton kept the news hidden for 30 years and shocked some of her closest friends when she made the revelation with a passing reference in her 2003 autobiography, Living History. She even spins it into a positive.

“Despite the satisfaction of my work, I was lonely and missed Bill more than I could stand,” she wrote. “I had taken both the Arkansas and Washington, D.C., bar exams during the summer, but my heart was pulling me toward Arkansas. When I learned that I passed in Arkansas but failed in D.C., I thought that maybe my test scores were telling me something.”

Yeah, that you were only good enough to practice hick law. Still, you larned how to beat the tar out of another woman (tramp, tart, slut, etc.) caught servicing your husband, so it wasn’t all bad.

What despicable people. All the “good works” of the Clinton Foundation can’t wash away the stain of their trespasses.

Comments

Good News for the Clinton Foundation

Something to take the heat off all the Arab oil money greasing Hill’s, Bill’s, and Chelsea’s wheels:

One donor – Rilin Enterprises- pledged $2 million in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation’s endowment. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate and run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is also a delegate to the Chinese parliament. Public records show the firm has spent $1.4 million since 2012, lobbying Congress and the State Department. The firm owns a strategic port along the border with North Korea and was also one of the contractors that built the Chinese embassy in Washington.

That contract is a direct tie to the Chinese government, according to Jim Mann, who has written several books on China’s relationship with the U.S.

With “embassy construction, one of the most important tasks is making sure that there are no bugs there,” he said. “So you want to have the closest security and intelligence connections with and approval of the person or company that’s going to build your embassy.”

The Clinton Foundation largely stopped taking money from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009. It resumed the practice once she left in 2013, but never stopped taking money from foreign companies or individuals.

Government is too messy and contention to be left the the people or the representatives. Can’t we just hire the Clintons to do it for us? They know all the right people; Chelsea can take over from the Regis and Regina (there’s our first woman president); and Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky can take over after that. I know they’d be up for it, and China will call all the shots anyway.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »