Tuesday, Hillary Clinton held a press conference in the UN in front of reporters. Except, wait: these weren’t regular US reporters; these were UN reporters. The UN requires a 24-hour notice for a conference before it will allow all — read: outside — reporters to cover an event. In this case, there was no 24-hour notice.
Might you suspect this is purposeful, since one reporter asked if her situation with e-mails would have occurred had she been a man?
Softball City.
Hillary, in the Tuesday press conference at the UN, quite clearly stated that her email server “contains personal communications from my husband and me.”
Really, Hillary?
Because if so, there’s a problem. Bill Clinton said he’s written only two e-mails in his entire life. From the WallStreetJournal.com:
Bill Clinton Still Doesn’t Use Email
by Laura Meckler
The former president, who does regularly use TwitterTWTR-3.68%, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman. After leaving office, Mr. Clinton established his own domain that staff use–@presidentclinton.com. But Mr. Clinton still doesn’t use email himself, Mr. McKenna said.
As president, Mr. Clinton’s first email was a message to John Glenn, the former senator and astronaut who in 1998 was making a return trip to space. Mr. Glenn wrote Mr. Clinton, and the president replied. “Hillary and I had a great time at the launch,” Mr. Clinton wrote in his note. “We are very proud of you and the entire crew, and a little jealous.”
Therefore, one of you Clintons is lying.
Not “prevaricating” or “mis-stating” or “mis-remembering.”
Lying.
In this instance, oddly enough, I’m betting Bill is telling the truth. Hillary is empowered, she is arrogant, she feels entitled, she is used to being treated with deference for, literally, decades. She does not live in reality.
Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
by Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger
The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.
Do you think you might find this information on the Clinton Foundation site today, perchance?
Uh, no. Absolutely nothing about that today.
$25 million dollars from the Saudis, whilst Hillary was Secretary of State.
Can anyone even remotely suggest a “conflict of interest” here?
In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.
Algeria. Of course. Such a pro-American government in North Africa. It is 99% Islamic.
Some of the donations came from countries with complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government, including Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.
Complicated. Right. Because Kuwait, Qatar and Oman aren’t Islamic.
Hell, ISIS isn’t Islamic, per Barack Hussein Obaka.
Further, another inconvenient fact:
Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Good for you, Chelsea. I have always advocated the inculcation of corruption of the innocents at the very earliest age. As I’ve said for years, “I’m either for less corruption or my greater ability to participate in it.” Good for you, Chelsea; you’ve started early.
The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.
Good for background. Only $2 billion dollars. Meh. Except: more than PETA. More than MoveOn.org, more than any Occupy movement.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the foundation had accepted new foreign-government money now that he 2008 agreement has lapsed.
Oh shucky-darn. The Clinton Foundation taking advantage of loopholes?
Foreign governments had been major donors to the foundation before President Obama nominated Clinton to become secretary of state in 2009. When the foundation released a list of its donors for the first time in 2008, as a result of the agreement with the Obama administration, it disclosed, for instance, that Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million.
Saudi Arabia contributed up to $25 million dollars to Hillary Clinton.
But then-Senator Richard G. Lugar (R-Indiana) said:
“The Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation,” he said then. “It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the secretary of state in relation to foreign givers or their countries.”
Of course. We all want Kim Jung Il, Raul Castro, Vladimir Putin, Hassan Rouhani, Bashar al-Assad, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and Xi Jinping to sleep like babies at night, comforted in the knowledge that we care about their feelings.
Hillary Clinton hammered for insisting U.S. should ‘empathize’ with enemies
by David Sherfinski
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting pushback for saying this week that smart foreign policy should include empathizing with one’s enemies.
Mrs. Clinton spoke at Georgetown University about what she called “smart power,” which entails “using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security, leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect, even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems, determine the solutions.”
I don’t believe, however, that Clinton anticipated pushback from a female Demorat, however:
Harman said she did not know what Clinton meant by “enemies” in her controversial statement.
“I take issue with the word ‘enemies,’” Harman told Fox’s Chris Wallace on Sunday. “I think we have to respect people with different points of view in order to win the argument with them. I don’t exactly know what she was saying.”
“I don’t think we have to respect members of terror groups ever,” Harman said. “I think we have to have harsh policies against them.”
Please notice, however, Harman parses her words carefully. She didn’t object solely to the word “empathize.” She objected to the word “enemies” principally. As in: it is harsh and judgmental to call any other nation an “enemy” of the United States.
Words matter. Again, as in: we losing the ability to even identify our enemies.
Let us not forget the most ridiculous quote to issue from a politician’s pie-hole in quite some time:
Of course it’s not corporation and businesses who create jobs; as far as Leftists are concerned, only the gubmint can do that — through their all-caring, all-controlling, all-regulated benevolence.
To think that someone this stupid, arrogant, daft and bordering on insane spewing a statement like that is actually admired by people. Tells you quite a bit about women, NOW, the Demorat Party and anyone sufficiently brain-dead to consider voting for her.
Just as the NPD-ridden Mr Obama stated “you didn’t build that” to businesses, Shrillary Clinton now has her very own moronic catch-phrase for Republicans to trot about the politisphere for good measure.
Oh that’s right, they won’t. The GOP hasn’t a clue how to fight a political battle.
Ralph Nader dubs Hillary Clinton ‘a menace to the United States’
by Cheryl K. Chumley
Ralph Nader, a former Green Party and Independent Party presidential candidate who frequently serves as a loud critic of federal safety standards, doesn’t have much love for presumptive Democratic Party White House candidate Hillary Clinton.
When asked by a writer with We Are Change what he thought of the the former Secretary of State seeking the nation’s highest office, Mr. Nader’s reply was less than enthusiastic.
“Well, Hillary is a corporatist and a militarist,” Mr. Nader said, Raw Story reported. “Do we want another corporatist and militarist? She thinks Obama is too weak. He doesn’t kill enough people overseas. So she’s a menace to the United States of America.”
