New Book on ‘Clinton Cash’ reportedly claims foreign donors got State Dept. favors (Fox News and NY Times)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2015 4:22 PM GMT
    Guess RJ's NY Times "Reporter" missed this beauty icon_lol.gif

    CASH FOR FAVORS?
    Book makes bombshell claim about Hill's State Dept.

    Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign is just one week out of the gate, but already a supposedly bombshell book threatens to rock her candidacy.

    The New York Times reported Monday that the book, set for release on May 5, will make new claims about donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign donors. Specifically, the book reportedly claims foreign entities that donated to the foundation -- and that gave former President Bill Clinton high-dollar speaking fees -- in turn received favors from the Clinton State Department.

    Author Peter Schweizer reportedly claims to have found a "pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds."

    According to the Times, which got an advance copy of the book, Schweizer's examples include a Colombia free-trade agreement that helped a major donor and projects in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/20/book-on-clinton-cash-reportedly-claims-foreign-donors-got-state-dept-favors/

    New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html?_r=0

    And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2015 4:25 PM GMT

    hc.jpeg
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Apr 20, 2015 8:03 PM GMT
    Written by Baby Bush's speechwriter and published by a Newscorp subsidiary. lol I'm surprised the Benghazy chairman hasn't "alleged" on it yet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    Destinharbor saidWritten by Baby Bush's speechwriter and published by a Newscorp subsidiary. lol I'm surprised the Benghazy chairman hasn't "alleged" on it yet.

    Makes no difference who wrote it. Whether the allegations prove to be true is what matters. Based on feedback from those who have been briefed, the facts appear rock-solid, indisputable. But we'll find out in time. The tack taken so far by the Clinton team and supporters is not to try and dispute the facts, but make charges about the author, claim it is a hit job, swift boating and the like. That tends to support the facts.

    She has already committed crimes by conspiring with key aids to use her private email server, wiping the server clean instead of having a neutral arbitrator separate personal from official email, and making the ridiculous lie that all was for "convenience".

    The entire email crimes indicate she wanted to hide other crimes or indiscretions. If the facts in the book are verified, and key aids are called to testify, she could be in for difficult times.

    She has already established a pattern of dishonesty as indicated by poll results. We'll see if corruption is added on top of that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 1:13 AM GMT
    But that can't be right. Hillary said they were dead broke when they left the White House.

    hillary-as-homeless.jpg?w=584

    53a9d21006f82.preview-620.jpg
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Apr 21, 2015 7:24 AM GMT
    Destinharbor saidWritten by Baby Bush's speechwriter and published by a Newscorp subsidiary. lol I'm surprised the Benghazy chairman hasn't "alleged" on it yet.


    At some point doesn't someone from the Hillary camp need to address some of these concerns? These facts are present before the book.

    1) The email deletions?
    2) The foreign donations while Sec of State.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 1:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    musclmed said
    At some point doesn't someone from the Hillary camp need to address some of these concerns? These facts are present before the book.

    1) The email deletions?
    2) The foreign donations while Sec of State.



    No. They know that the electorate isn't paying attention.

    A certain percentage will pay attention as reflected by polls. It doesn't matter to most of the far left. Their ideology and hatred of those not on the far left is more important to them than integrity. They tolerate her lack of integrity because they tolerate the same lack of integrity in themselves.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 21, 2015 2:33 PM GMT
    I expect there to be a lot of tenuous connections made, just like all of these hit pieces. The Columbian agreement, for example, was signed during the Bush administration, passed congress in 2011, and implemented in 2012. It will be interesting to see what connection is made to the Clinton Foundation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 2:45 PM GMT
    ABC’S KARL: CAMPAIGN CLEARLY WORRIED ABOUT ‘CLINTON CASH’

    Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” while discussing “Clinton Cash,” the forthcoming book to be released May 5 that raises questions about State Department favors linked to foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, ABC News chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl said, “The Clinton campaign is clearly worried about this.”

    Karl said, “That’s right, they limited the number of foreign government donations that the Clinton foundation would take. This new book takes a close look at the tens of millions of dollars in donations that the Clinton foundation received and also the speaking fees that Bill Clinton received while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. It charges that those donors got favors for their donations. The Clinton campaign is clearly worried about this. They are portraying it a partisan hit job, pointing out that the author is a former Bush speechwriter.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/abcs-karl-campaign-clearly-worried-about-clinton-cash/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 2:46 PM GMT

    ny-post-clinton-cover-640x716.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 8:57 PM GMT
    Curious, are you against Hilary Clinton running for office / or promoting the book itself here. ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 9:02 PM GMT


    "As Media Matters has documented, Schweizer has a record of making inaccurate claims, factual errors, and retractions. "


    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/21/3649392/clinton-cash/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 9:06 PM GMT



    LOL! Nothing like a liar writing a book claiming others are liars.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/21/1379052/-Author-of-new-anti-Clinton-book-has-a-long-record-of-errors-and-falsehoods
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 10:32 PM GMT
    KyMaverick saidCurious, are you against Hilary Clinton running for office / or promoting the book itself here. ?

    Neither. I don't care if she runs for any office, and I'm not trying to increase sales of the book among RJ members.

    My purpose is to share information with those who oppose her and those undecided. If the facts in the book prove correct, it will damage her candidacy. Based on feedback from those briefed, there is every reason to believe the information is correct.

    It's already clear that she conspired with key aids at the start of her Secretary of State tenure to use a private server to conceal emails among them. Then she wiped the server clean upon requests to have a neutral arbitrator cut out the personal from official email. Actions in violation of federal law.

    The facts surrounding her illegal activity and likely corruption will be what sticks, and any attempts by the far left to make it all about the author won't matter at all. In fact, those attempts versus trying to dispute the facts suggest the facts will stick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 11:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThis was pretty shocking - ALL of the MSNBC hosts weren't buying the pro-Hillary spin!

    Thanks for posting that. David Brock is a typical Hillary supporter and when he spews nonsense, it's is difficult for even left-leaning journalists to buy it. While they prefer left-leaning candidates, they don't want to appear stupid, which is what happen if they bought Brock's crap.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 21, 2015 11:22 PM GMT
    please, all these scum bags have something to gain from a Clinton win (or a Bush win, or a Rubio win)

    they don't lend their support because they like them - they do it because they smell money and influence
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 21, 2015 11:28 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidWritten by Baby Bush's speechwriter and published by a Newscorp subsidiary. lol I'm surprised the Benghazy chairman hasn't "alleged" on it yet.


    Hahahahah! There you go like a loyal Hilly twat sniffer ... attack the messenger in a lame attempt to distract from the truth.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 21, 2015 11:51 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    A certain percentage will pay attention as reflected by polls. It doesn't matter to most of the far left. Their ideology and hatred of those not on the far left is more important to them then integrity. They tolerate her lack of integrity because they tolerate the same lack of integrity in themselves.


    THAT^^^^ sums it up perfectly. I'm glad someone besides me has noticed that.

    Thanks for saying it Socal.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 21, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    ny-post-clinton-cover-640x716.jpg


    THAT IS TOO FUNNY and TOO TRUE!

    It's not like the Clinton Trail of Quid Pro Dough began recently either.

    It goes all the way back to him as governor of Arkansas... when she was making miraculous 1000% profits on 10 month investments in cattle futures that she knew nothing about while the two men supposedly mentoring her A.) broke even and B.) went belly up and declared bankruptcy. Several University math departments collaborated to come up with a statistical probability of Hillary's profits being honest. They concluded it was one chance in 3,000,000,000,000. Everyday of the year they convict people on DNA evidence with those same stats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2015 12:10 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    socalfitness said
    A certain percentage will pay attention as reflected by polls. It doesn't matter to most of the far left. Their ideology and hatred of those not on the far left is more important to them then integrity. They tolerate her lack of integrity because they tolerate the same lack of integrity in themselves.


    THAT^^^^ sums it up perfectly. I'm glad someone besides me has noticed that.

    Thanks for saying it Socal.

    Thank you for your comment. To me integrity is more important than one's political positions or affiliations. I have voted for Democrats over Republicans just based on that, even if I disagreed with some of the positions of the Democrats. The way I looked at it, I would prefer someone honest who disagrees with me on some issues over someone dishonest. The dishonest person might agree with me today, but could I trust them to stay true to what they say?

    Whatever the facts of the book in question, the pattern of dishonesty in Hillary is clear. Washington Post veteran journalist Carl Woodward backs that up: http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4036426/

    I'm going to press the integrity issue even if I piss people off. I believe that overlooking or accepting dishonesty in others, whatever their politics might be, does reflect on the person. While we are not under any honor code, the code from the Air Force Academy website illustrates my point: "We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does." I believe rationalizing or tolerating dishonesty is a reflection on an individual's character. Pointing out any character flaws or actions of others serve to justify excusing it in the present. It still remains an excuse and still reflects on one's character.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2015 1:56 AM GMT
    Funny how you people were claiming in that other thread that "Salon" has no credibility.
    But this partisan hack-job trash does?
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    At least you people could be honest about your bias. You never are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 22, 2015 2:04 AM GMT
    Sharkspeare saidFunny how you people were claiming in that other thread that "Salon" has no credibility.
    But this partisan hack-job trash does?
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    At least you people could be honest about your bias. You never are.

    +1
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Apr 22, 2015 2:07 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    hc.jpeg
    The more compelling truths come out about this crooked power hungry whore the better it will be for our country meaning that this bumbling bitch will get ripped apart on the campaign trail and sent down into crushing, permanent defeat at the hands of the American voters.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 22, 2015 2:07 AM GMT
    Speaking of integrity, let's talk about this guy, David Brock, who is leading the effort (through Media Matters which he founded) to protect Hillary from a book that isn't even released yet. Brock has said there are serious questions about the integrity and background of the book's author. Let's look at Brock's integrity and background.

    He was originally a conservative journalist who came to fame for writing "The Real Anita Hill" a 1991 book Brock himself admitted was a character assassination of the woman who accused conservative Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during the nomination process to the supreme court. He has since apologized to Hill.

    Then it appears Brock changed sides. For money perhaps?
    You decide when you read this.

    His next climb into the spotlight was for writing about Troopergate the growing scandal caused by women Bill Clinton had screwed and harassed coming forward in the press. Information Brock wrote about the women was proven false and used in the civil suit against Clinton by Paula Jones that led to Clinton paying $850,000 to Jones and her lawyers. For President Clinton's lies in depositions as well as other breaches of ethics he was subsequently stripped of his license to practice law.

    A year later, with a million dollar advance he published a biography of Hillary, "The Seduction of Hillary Clinton." The book disappointed many readers who expected Brock to write a more revealing and detailed exposé on Hillary.

    In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods.

    Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, "I . . . want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead." Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year.

    In 2002 he published a new book, "Blinded by the Right" Brock characterized himself as having been "a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine."

    (Note: You will soon see all Brock did was essentially trade sides to become a writing cog in the Democrat sleaze machine.)

    About the same time he founded Media Matters.

    Brock announced in 2010 that he was forming a super-PAC, American Bridge, to help elect liberal Democrats, starting with the 2012 election cycle.

    In describing Brock's intentions for the super-PAC, The New York Times referred to Brock as a "prominent Democratic political operative" The Washington Post's characterization of him was a "former journalist-turned-political operative" New York Magazine referred to Brock's "hyperpartisanship."

    In a 2011 interview with Politico, Brock vowed to wage "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" against conservative media like Fox News.

    This explains Media Matters' "hyperpartisanship" and Brock's own concerns in protecting Hillary.





  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 22, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    come on, Clinton is so fucking conflicted and compromised she can't even answer a question about the TPP

    she has absolutely no clue what she is for or against unless someone or a poll tells her

    I have zero respect for her nebulous calculating ways - I bet she even realizes she's a hollow shell