All of my adult life, at least the years during which I have been politically aware, I have noticed a definite bias in the media. I am amazed when I hear folks denying this reality, or worse, criticizing Fox News for providing a Conservative perspective to current events. Not a day goes by that I don't acknowledge my appreciation for both Fox News and the Drudge Report. The playing field is not equal by any stretch of the imagination, but at least someone of my political persuasion is willing to put up a fight. Frequently, though, I am reminded of just how powerful the liberal media has become. The first Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump provided just such a reminder. Not surprisingly, the moderator feigned complete neutrality, and then proceeded to ambush Trump with questions about a former Ms. Universe Pageant contestant. I expected the moderator to discuss Trump's income taxes and also his comments regarding the Obama birth certificate comtroversy. It would only make sense, considering the Clinton email server issue and the controversy regarding influence peddling and the Clinton Foundation would surely be mentioed. I was mistaken. I can only assume that the first debate was meant to focus on sensitive Trump developments, and that the second debate would introduce Hillary's trouble issues; time will tell.
Today the Washington Post released a video clip of Donald Trump making some less-than proper comments regarding women during a conversation with journalist Billy Bush. Trump was obviously not aware that he was being filmed at the time. His commentary was very similar to the type of banter I hear frequently when groups of men get together and the subject of women is introduced. Regardless, it isn't pretty, and Trump's apology was appropriate and appeared sincere. Of course, we will never hear the end of this latest snafu, because the media believes that they have found the torpedo that will sink the Trump campaign once and for all. Maybe they have, but it certainly won't deflect me from making some simple observations. First and foremost, I would to know how long the Post has been in possession of this video, and what motivated the decision to air it now, roughly three weeks before the election. I have a sneaky suspicion that the Post was in possession, or at least aware of, the video during the Republican Primaries. Is it off-base to conjecture that the Washington Post held on to this embarrassing bit of tape during the Primaries because the Democratic establishment wanted Trump to win the nomination, giving them the opportunity to use all the goodies that they had collected and put away for future use? I bet the press was aware of the former Ms. Universe early-on as well. After Donald Trump won the nomination, the mainstream media was beside itself with the belief that, just as in 2008 and 2012, they had manipulated negative stories on the various candidates in order to "pick" the GOP nominee. Its not as far-fetched as you might think. I can't be the only Republican voter who is left confused and frustrated by the recent string of flawed GOP nominees.
What has me truly angry, though, is not possible manipulation by the Press, or even the obvious bias with which Conservative candidates are obliged to accept. What really gives me a case of the Texas Red-Ass is the hypocrisy of the Media and the Washington Post in particular. For those of you who are old enough to remember Bill Clinton's Administration, it must be just as easy for you as it is for me to recall some of the more unpleasant details of President Clinton's seduction of White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lots to remember here, folks, imcludimg the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"......., and the perjury committed in the Paula Jones deposition. And then there was the cigar, and the stained dress, and the fact that Lewinsky was not only a subordinate of Clinton, she was also a very young woman, in her early twenties. Where is the hypocrisy, you ask? When the Lewinsky saga was unfolding, the mainstream Media led the charge to declare the enter controversy "a personal matter" and "nobody's business" (my quotations). The Post was out-front in scolding Americans for turning a private issue into a political weapon. Isn't that exactly what the Washington Post is doing now? Don't kid yourself- the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign aren't shocked and disturbed by the video clip. They are thrilled, and no doubt they believe Trump won't be able to recover from this scandal. I can only hope that the American people will see this for what it is, a private moment of conversation that should never have been exploited in this way, regardless of the content of the discussion. The Washington Post has gone so far as to release a transcript of the video clip. I don't need to read the transcript. It makes no difference to me what Trump said to a friend in a private conversation that had nothing to do with government business. Hillary Clinton's problems, on the other hand, have everything to do with her behavior as a US Government employee. I'm also much more comfortable with a lewd Donald Trump in the White House, than a return trip for Bill Clinton in any incarnation. I believe the man is a sexual predator and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
Showing posts with label The Clinton Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Clinton Foundation. Show all posts
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Friday, September 9, 2016
Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.
I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary. The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016. It hasn't turned out exactly as planned. Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed. I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep. But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth. Lets start from the beginning.
Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia. During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached. This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship. Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST). The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established. In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's. Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty! Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING. This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it. For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride". Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore. I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention. I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.
Let's get the Foundation out of the way. Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department. Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet. Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation. Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors. Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law. By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?
At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing. Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt. Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change. As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring. This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News. Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live. It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour. Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed. Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary. The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?
In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq. The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces. This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office. These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare. As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded. The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War. Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared. Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army. Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009? Because of politics, folks. The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq. Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't. ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.
What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy. The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment. Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements. There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans. Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people? We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died. Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault. We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya. I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again". Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.
Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State? Get back to me of you come up with something.
Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia. During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached. This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship. Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST). The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established. In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's. Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty! Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING. This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it. For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride". Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore. I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention. I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.
Let's get the Foundation out of the way. Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department. Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet. Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation. Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors. Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law. By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?
At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing. Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt. Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change. As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring. This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News. Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live. It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour. Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed. Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary. The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?
In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq. The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces. This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office. These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare. As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded. The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War. Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared. Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army. Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009? Because of politics, folks. The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq. Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't. ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.
What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy. The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment. Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements. There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans. Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people? We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died. Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault. We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya. I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again". Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.
Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State? Get back to me of you come up with something.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
A few important and fair issues to consider before voting for Hillary Clinton.
(I realize that today's blog entry is addressed to person's who may choose to vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8. I also acknowledge that the great majority of people who read this blog have no intention of voting for Clinton. These facts may lead you to consider, "what's the point?" The national conversation currently taking place in the United States isn't meant to be limited to just the necessary amount of bad press to convince folks to vote one way or another. Even after you believe you have made up your mind, its important to let the educational process comtinue. Learn all you can about both candidates. It can only add to your conviction.)
We have less than sixty-three days remaining before United States citizens go to the polls to decide who follows Barack Obama into the Oval Office. There is no doubt that the American people would like a campaign based on the economy, foreign policy, and the national debt, just to name a few important issues. But at the end of the day, the discussion always seems to devolve into negative reporting and personal attacks. Last week, Republican Donald Trump announced an effort to reach out to Black and Hispanic Americans, two voting groups that seem determined to vote Democrat until the end of time. Trump spoke of the rising unemployment in minority communities and the lack of quality schools. He didn't shy away from the subject of gun violence, and the unacceptably high number of young Black and Hispanic men who sit in jail, when they should be sitting in a College Classroom. Trump spoke of the failure of the system that exists in place, and the lack of opportunity in our poorer urban communities. Instead of encouraging the introduction of such important issues into the race for the Presidency, the Clinton Campaign almost overnight put together a video alleging that Donald Trump has ties to the KKK- a perfect example of what is wrong with our political system.
Although I'm sure the Trump Campaign won't hesitate to attack Clinton in the same fashion, I always endeavor to introduce issues that I feel are relavent and vetted. Vetted by who? By me; I've spent enough time living in DC and working inside the beast to have a useful perspective, if you will excuse the self-promotion. I won't accuse Hillary Clinton of being a Chinese spy or a closet Marxist (she disposed of the closet long ago!). But I will ask a very important question, that as of today, has yet to be addressed. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, how will she be able to view classified material? A simple review of Clinton's admitted actions involving classified documents when she was Secretary of State, preclude her from having any hope in hell of passing a background check. If we consider only the actions that Clinton has admitted, and set aside the plethora of unanswered accusations, it would be a stretch to think that Clinton could get a "Confidential" level clearance, let alone a Top Secret/SCI clearance, which is a necessary tool for the President of the United States. Its past time that the issue is addressed by the media. How can we elect a President who cannot pass the necessary evaluation to earn a Top Secret/SCI clearance?
Let's take a look at that monstrosity identified as "The Clinton Foundation". This entity serves to provide former President Bill Clinton the opportunity to raise money for a number of good causes across the globe. The idea is that Bill Clinton has a great deal of influence among the powerful and wealthy around the world, and can bridge the gap between the needy and the resources necessary to improve lives. It all sounds great, except for a handful of problems. Have you ever heard of, or seen, The Clinton Foundation at work? Have you ever seen a news special or documentary on some successful project to feed hungry people or educate the poor, that was made possible by the Clinton Foundation? In the end, the Foundation is just like all the other charities that the rich and famous like to set up (lately its been folks in sports and the entertainment industry); lots of noise and money changing hands, but very little being accomplished. The reality is, these Foundations serve to provide jobs to all of those who at one time or another, proved useful. The Clinton Foundation is a "who's who" of Clinton supporters and useful contacts. It costs a fortune to run a Foundation, especially when you take a look at what it's employees are paid. At the end of the day, its a miracle that any money is left over at all to apply to the original goal. But the Foundation continues to grow, and in the case of Bill Clinton, provide a never-ending supply of worshipers and fans. Isn't Bill a great guy!
When Hillary Clinton joined the Obama Administration as Secretary of State, persons within Obama's inner circle expressed concern about the closeness of the Foundation to the State Department. The Obama folks were assured that a "wall" existed, so that no overlap could take place. So much for the wall. So far, it has come to light that two of Hillary Clinton's State Deptartment Staff, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, continued to do work for the Foundation. The real trouble for Hillary didn't start until a review of her meeting logs detailed that 55% of persons she met with in her role as Secretary of State, turned around and donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Have you heard of Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury? He is a friend of Bill Clinton's, gave at least one million dollars to The Foundation, and pledged to donate one billion dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative. Not surprisingly, he was treated as a VIP by Hillary's State Department. He has since been convicted of money laundering in Switzerland.
Sixty-three days do not provide enough time to dig into the hidden tunnels of contacts and favors that existed between Hillary Clinton's State Department and The Clinton Foundation. So much money, so many discreet deals and purposely paid degrees-of-separation. For persons who are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, are you sure that all of this smoke doesn't lead to a fire somewhere down the line? You may not like Trump, but he has lived his life as a businessman, doing his best to succeed within the framework of rules and regulations that exist for Real Estate Developers. Clinton has been a politician her entire adult life, which inevitably leads to the type of complications discussed in the previous paragraphs. Isn't it time we tried a different direction?
We have less than sixty-three days remaining before United States citizens go to the polls to decide who follows Barack Obama into the Oval Office. There is no doubt that the American people would like a campaign based on the economy, foreign policy, and the national debt, just to name a few important issues. But at the end of the day, the discussion always seems to devolve into negative reporting and personal attacks. Last week, Republican Donald Trump announced an effort to reach out to Black and Hispanic Americans, two voting groups that seem determined to vote Democrat until the end of time. Trump spoke of the rising unemployment in minority communities and the lack of quality schools. He didn't shy away from the subject of gun violence, and the unacceptably high number of young Black and Hispanic men who sit in jail, when they should be sitting in a College Classroom. Trump spoke of the failure of the system that exists in place, and the lack of opportunity in our poorer urban communities. Instead of encouraging the introduction of such important issues into the race for the Presidency, the Clinton Campaign almost overnight put together a video alleging that Donald Trump has ties to the KKK- a perfect example of what is wrong with our political system.
Although I'm sure the Trump Campaign won't hesitate to attack Clinton in the same fashion, I always endeavor to introduce issues that I feel are relavent and vetted. Vetted by who? By me; I've spent enough time living in DC and working inside the beast to have a useful perspective, if you will excuse the self-promotion. I won't accuse Hillary Clinton of being a Chinese spy or a closet Marxist (she disposed of the closet long ago!). But I will ask a very important question, that as of today, has yet to be addressed. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, how will she be able to view classified material? A simple review of Clinton's admitted actions involving classified documents when she was Secretary of State, preclude her from having any hope in hell of passing a background check. If we consider only the actions that Clinton has admitted, and set aside the plethora of unanswered accusations, it would be a stretch to think that Clinton could get a "Confidential" level clearance, let alone a Top Secret/SCI clearance, which is a necessary tool for the President of the United States. Its past time that the issue is addressed by the media. How can we elect a President who cannot pass the necessary evaluation to earn a Top Secret/SCI clearance?
Let's take a look at that monstrosity identified as "The Clinton Foundation". This entity serves to provide former President Bill Clinton the opportunity to raise money for a number of good causes across the globe. The idea is that Bill Clinton has a great deal of influence among the powerful and wealthy around the world, and can bridge the gap between the needy and the resources necessary to improve lives. It all sounds great, except for a handful of problems. Have you ever heard of, or seen, The Clinton Foundation at work? Have you ever seen a news special or documentary on some successful project to feed hungry people or educate the poor, that was made possible by the Clinton Foundation? In the end, the Foundation is just like all the other charities that the rich and famous like to set up (lately its been folks in sports and the entertainment industry); lots of noise and money changing hands, but very little being accomplished. The reality is, these Foundations serve to provide jobs to all of those who at one time or another, proved useful. The Clinton Foundation is a "who's who" of Clinton supporters and useful contacts. It costs a fortune to run a Foundation, especially when you take a look at what it's employees are paid. At the end of the day, its a miracle that any money is left over at all to apply to the original goal. But the Foundation continues to grow, and in the case of Bill Clinton, provide a never-ending supply of worshipers and fans. Isn't Bill a great guy!
When Hillary Clinton joined the Obama Administration as Secretary of State, persons within Obama's inner circle expressed concern about the closeness of the Foundation to the State Department. The Obama folks were assured that a "wall" existed, so that no overlap could take place. So much for the wall. So far, it has come to light that two of Hillary Clinton's State Deptartment Staff, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, continued to do work for the Foundation. The real trouble for Hillary didn't start until a review of her meeting logs detailed that 55% of persons she met with in her role as Secretary of State, turned around and donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Have you heard of Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury? He is a friend of Bill Clinton's, gave at least one million dollars to The Foundation, and pledged to donate one billion dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative. Not surprisingly, he was treated as a VIP by Hillary's State Department. He has since been convicted of money laundering in Switzerland.
Sixty-three days do not provide enough time to dig into the hidden tunnels of contacts and favors that existed between Hillary Clinton's State Department and The Clinton Foundation. So much money, so many discreet deals and purposely paid degrees-of-separation. For persons who are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, are you sure that all of this smoke doesn't lead to a fire somewhere down the line? You may not like Trump, but he has lived his life as a businessman, doing his best to succeed within the framework of rules and regulations that exist for Real Estate Developers. Clinton has been a politician her entire adult life, which inevitably leads to the type of complications discussed in the previous paragraphs. Isn't it time we tried a different direction?
Friday, July 1, 2016
Bill Clinton coincidentally "bumps into" Attorney General Lynch.
My intention today was to continue my series on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State for the Obama Administration, but candidate Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, has caused an interruption in my carefully planned schedule. If the news hasn't reached your neck of the woods just yet, Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch had an impromptu meeting aboard Lynch's plane at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. It's apparent that AG Lynch was not expecting the meeting, but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not so quick to believe that Bill Clinton's appearance was "impromptu". For whatever reason, Clinton intended the meeting to be under the radar, and the few journalists who were in the vicinity were ordered not to take any photographs. Bill Clinton is a former President, and Loretta Lynch is the current Attorney General; why would a discreet, unscheduled meeting between the two raise any eyebrows?
Here are the reasons why this meeting should never have taken place. Hillary Clinton, Bill's wife and the Democratic nominee for President in 2016 (in all probability), is being investigated by Lynch's Department of Justice and the FBI. when Hillary was Secretary of State for the Obama Administration back in 2010, she ordered that a separate email server should be located in her home, so that she could ensure better control over personal conversations and information. Unfortunately, this server was not limited to transmitting personal information about the color of underwear the Secretary wanted to wear on any given day. A review of the thousands of emails that were sent on this server include classified information. Simply put, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton purposely mishandled sensitive information. The docking of her server to the State Department system also opened up Foggy Bottom to hacking. Once this story began to develop, Congress smelled a political opportunity, so at least two investigations were scheduled. The investigations have resulted in a few cases of "pleading the fifth" and what would appear to be serious obfuscation. I can't remember the last time that a Congressional Investigation achieved anything more than putting most of the eastern seaboard to sleep; but the politicians muddle through, and after wiping away all the political distractions, it does appear as if Hillary Clinton purposely attempted to subvert State Department security procedures. If the FBI recommends that Hillary Clinton be indicted, Loretta Lynch will make the final decision. When questioned, both Clinton and Lynch claim that their conversation was strictly related to personal matters. At this point, I'm not prepared to call anyone a liar, but I don't think it really makes a difference. Regardless of the topic of conversation, the meeting was inappropriate in the extreme, and not just because of the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal server.
In fact, from my optic, the server is actually a small fry compared to the other issue being "examined". The huge, influential international beast we all know as "The Clinton Foundation" has also drawn the attention of federal investigators. Do you recall roughly ten years ago when Hillary Clinton claimed poverty on behalf of her family? If my memory serves me correctly, the Clintons had no money because they had to pay legal fees for countless politically motivated court cases and also put Chelsea through college. A quick glance at the bottom line tells me that Bill and Hillary no longer have any financial concerns. Hillary can get as much as $225,000 per speech, and no doubt Bill gets more. The Clinton Foundation really has no connection to the Clinton bank account, at least none that we can find. As self-defined, the Foundation simply assists in connecting donors to appropriate charity and aid programs. Who decides how the money is spent? Is there a black list of governments and persons who are not allowed to donate to the Foundation? One of the reasons that the Foundation has started to draw so much attention seems to be its willingness to take money from questionable donors. Just about every Arab sheikdom has donated money to the Foundation, and why not? Bill Clinton continues to cultivate contacts he made as President, especially in China and the Persian Gulf. The problem is, the Clintons are strong supporters of the LGBT community. The above-mentioned nations are not. In fact, in most of the Gulf States, homosexuality carries the death penalty. Similar discrepancies, along with a number of questionable tax issues, have put the spotlight on the Foundation. In fact, the Justice Department has been looking into some of these concerns. And here comes friendly ol' Bill Clinton knockin' on your door.
With both the Clinton Foundation and his wife under the scrutiny of the Justice Department, Bill Clinton should have stayed as far away as possible from the Attorney General. In fact, he did just the opposite. Was Bill Clinton hoping to have a chummy little chat with a fellow Democrat that would help calm any fears in the Clinton for President camp regarding the possibility of an indictment? This was a terrible mistake by Bill Clinton, even though Attorney General Lynch has publicly announced that she will accept whatever recommendation is made regarding Hillary Clinton and her server. If the FBI does not recommend an indictment, conservatives across the board will point to the Phoenix meeting, arguing reasonably that just because Lynch doesn't overly make the decision herself, it would have been simple for her to reach out to her "team" at the FBI and influence its decision. Let's face it, when has a Democrat ever said no to Bill Clinton? As for the Foundation, everything about this entity bothers me, so I need to do a bit of homework before I comment further.
Here are the reasons why this meeting should never have taken place. Hillary Clinton, Bill's wife and the Democratic nominee for President in 2016 (in all probability), is being investigated by Lynch's Department of Justice and the FBI. when Hillary was Secretary of State for the Obama Administration back in 2010, she ordered that a separate email server should be located in her home, so that she could ensure better control over personal conversations and information. Unfortunately, this server was not limited to transmitting personal information about the color of underwear the Secretary wanted to wear on any given day. A review of the thousands of emails that were sent on this server include classified information. Simply put, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton purposely mishandled sensitive information. The docking of her server to the State Department system also opened up Foggy Bottom to hacking. Once this story began to develop, Congress smelled a political opportunity, so at least two investigations were scheduled. The investigations have resulted in a few cases of "pleading the fifth" and what would appear to be serious obfuscation. I can't remember the last time that a Congressional Investigation achieved anything more than putting most of the eastern seaboard to sleep; but the politicians muddle through, and after wiping away all the political distractions, it does appear as if Hillary Clinton purposely attempted to subvert State Department security procedures. If the FBI recommends that Hillary Clinton be indicted, Loretta Lynch will make the final decision. When questioned, both Clinton and Lynch claim that their conversation was strictly related to personal matters. At this point, I'm not prepared to call anyone a liar, but I don't think it really makes a difference. Regardless of the topic of conversation, the meeting was inappropriate in the extreme, and not just because of the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal server.
In fact, from my optic, the server is actually a small fry compared to the other issue being "examined". The huge, influential international beast we all know as "The Clinton Foundation" has also drawn the attention of federal investigators. Do you recall roughly ten years ago when Hillary Clinton claimed poverty on behalf of her family? If my memory serves me correctly, the Clintons had no money because they had to pay legal fees for countless politically motivated court cases and also put Chelsea through college. A quick glance at the bottom line tells me that Bill and Hillary no longer have any financial concerns. Hillary can get as much as $225,000 per speech, and no doubt Bill gets more. The Clinton Foundation really has no connection to the Clinton bank account, at least none that we can find. As self-defined, the Foundation simply assists in connecting donors to appropriate charity and aid programs. Who decides how the money is spent? Is there a black list of governments and persons who are not allowed to donate to the Foundation? One of the reasons that the Foundation has started to draw so much attention seems to be its willingness to take money from questionable donors. Just about every Arab sheikdom has donated money to the Foundation, and why not? Bill Clinton continues to cultivate contacts he made as President, especially in China and the Persian Gulf. The problem is, the Clintons are strong supporters of the LGBT community. The above-mentioned nations are not. In fact, in most of the Gulf States, homosexuality carries the death penalty. Similar discrepancies, along with a number of questionable tax issues, have put the spotlight on the Foundation. In fact, the Justice Department has been looking into some of these concerns. And here comes friendly ol' Bill Clinton knockin' on your door.
With both the Clinton Foundation and his wife under the scrutiny of the Justice Department, Bill Clinton should have stayed as far away as possible from the Attorney General. In fact, he did just the opposite. Was Bill Clinton hoping to have a chummy little chat with a fellow Democrat that would help calm any fears in the Clinton for President camp regarding the possibility of an indictment? This was a terrible mistake by Bill Clinton, even though Attorney General Lynch has publicly announced that she will accept whatever recommendation is made regarding Hillary Clinton and her server. If the FBI does not recommend an indictment, conservatives across the board will point to the Phoenix meeting, arguing reasonably that just because Lynch doesn't overly make the decision herself, it would have been simple for her to reach out to her "team" at the FBI and influence its decision. Let's face it, when has a Democrat ever said no to Bill Clinton? As for the Foundation, everything about this entity bothers me, so I need to do a bit of homework before I comment further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)