Hillary: Unfit to be POTUS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/hillary-clinton-unfit-for_b_8313372.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Everybody has a butt and an opinion. Fortunately, they can express the same opinion freely, but it is the voters who decide who will be President. The opinion of most Americans decides. So as usual, you will lose in one year and a few days. I am sorry for you and the anger you will have for more years. It must be tough.

She will be 6
Years into her prison sentence then

Obamasucks wrote:She will be 6 Years into her prison sentence then

If Dick and W escaped any sort of prosecution for their crimes, Hillary has nothing to worry about, Amigo.

I'm actually surprised you would want such a corrupt proven liar as president. She'll only represent the oligarchs.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/27/hillary_has_her_hands_out_democracy_for_oligarchs_and_bernie_sanders_radical_campaign_finance_pledge/

Let’s face it: Clinton has her hands out. She’s willing to take money from anyone,be it her super PAC or a Wall Street bank or Saudi Arabia or Donald Trump. And while she’s now making the right noises about political corruption, she’s come to that epiphany rather late. It wasn’t until last year that Clinton hinted she’d “consider supporting an amendment” to overturn Citizen United. Months before that,on the floor of the United States Senate,Bernie Sanders declared categorically that Citizens United was creating an “oligarchic form of society.” This isn’t a talking point for Sanders,in other words —it’s at the center of his campaign.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/clintons-charity-ties-with-oligarchs-behind-ukrainian-coup-revealed/5475866

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2009/01/more_than_a_good_feeling.html

Here is a thought experiment that does not take very much thought. Picture, if you will, Hillary Clinton facing a foreign-policy conundrum. With whom will she discuss it first and most intently: with her president or her husband? (I did tell you that this wouldn't be difficult.) Here's anotherone: Will she be swayed in her foreign-policy decisions by electoral considerations focusing on the year 2012, and, if so,will she be swayed by President Barack Obama's interests or her own?

The next question, and I must apologize in advance for once again making it an un-strenuous one, is: Who else will be approaching Bill Clinton for advice, counsel, and "input"on foreign affairs? It appears from the donor listof the Clinton Foundationthat there is barely an oligarch, royal family, or special-interest group anywhere in the world that does not know how to get the former president's attention. Just in the days since the foundation agreed to some disclosure of its previously "confidential" clients—in other words, since this became a condition for Sen. Clinton's nomination to become secretaryof state—we have additionally found former President Clinton in warm relationships with one very questionable businessman in Malaysia and with another, this time in Nigeria, who used to have close connections with that country's ultra corrupt military dictatorship.

The Nigerian example is an especially instructive one. Gilbert Chagoury is a major figure in land and construction in that countryand has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as arranged a huge speaking fee for President Clinton at a Caribbean event and kicked in a large sum to his 1996 re-election campaign. In return for this, he has been received at the Clinton White House and more recently at Clinton-sponsored social events in New York and Paris. This may have helped to alleviate the sting of Chagoury's difficulties in Nigeria itself. As a close friend of the country's uniformed despot Gen. Sani Abacha,he benefited from some extremely profitable business arrangements during the years of dictatorship but was latercompelled, after an investigation of his transactions, to return an estimated $300 million to the Nigerian treasuryin exchange fora plea-bargaining arrangement by which his bank accounts could be unfrozen.

Aha, you say, there's no evidence of any quid pro quo here. (Or, in other words, Chagoury gives a fortune to Clinton because he, too, wants to "fight AIDS.") Of course, this may only be seed money for a later "quid" oreven "quo" that hasn't yet materialized. And if Chagoury or anyone else had ever received the impression that the Clintons would play for pay,it's easy to see how he got the idea. (See myNov. 24, 2008, Slate column on the investigations of the Clinton campaign-finance scandals and the shenanigans surrounding the Marc Rich pardon.)

But does a contribution to Bill Clinton's foundation get you any traction with Sen. Clinton, at least in her political and official capacity? Let's see. A recent story in the New York Times managed to begin with some very crisp and clear and fact-based paragraphs:

An upstate New York developer donated $100,000 to former President Bill

Clinton's foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator

Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars infederal assistance

for the businessman's mall project.

Mrs. Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert J. Congel,

to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the DestinyUSA

entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in

Syracuse.

Mrs. Clinton also helped secure a provision in a highway bill that set aside $5

millionfor Destiny USA roadway construction.

Why should anyone doubt, then, that in small matters as well as in large ones, the old slogan from the 1992 election still holds true? As Billso touchingly put it that year,if you voted forhim, you got "two for one." What the country—and the world—has since learned is a slight variation on that, which I would crudely phrase as "buy one, get one free."

The deal struck by the wide-eyed incoming Obama administration is that the list of donors to the Clinton Foundation will be reviewed once every year and that onlythe new donations from foreign states—which already include an extraordinarily large number from Gulf sheikdoms—will be scrutinized by administration lawyers. How would we react if we read that this was the rule for the Vladimir Putin government, say, or former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's regime in Germany? Before me, for example, is the report of a pledge of $100 million tothe Clinton Foundation's Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative bya set of companies based in Vancouverand known as the Lundin Group. The ostensible purpose of this mind-bogglingcontribution is stated in the usual vacuous terms of "sustainable local economies," chieflyin Africa. All I know for sure about the Lundin Group is that it does quite a lot of business in Sudan. And all I can think to ask—as perhaps some senator might think to ask—is whysuch a big corporate interest doesn't just donate the money directly, ratherthan distributing it through the offices of an outfit run by a seasoned ex-presidential influence-peddler. What do theyand the other donors suppose they are getting for their money? A good feeling?

That was another no-brainer question I just asked. So let me stop insulting you, dear reader, and pose a question to which we do not have any obvious answer. Whyis Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange forgiving the painful impression that ourState Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactlyare we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriouslyambitious woman who made a foolof herself over Bosnia,at the time and during the recent campaign,and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492?cb=logged0.5873955793213099


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-clinton-conflicts-of-interest/article/2564035

Although Hillary Clinton was a vocal advocate for nonproliferation during her 2008 presidential bid, she seemingly shifted gears on the issue after well-connected Indian officials lavished her husband with paid speaking engagements, and his foundation with generous donations.

Indian money began flowing to the philanthropy after a bill that would have softened restrictions on nuclear trade with the country met resistance in Congress. At the time, then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was an opponent of the legislation.

Amar Singh, a member of India's parliament, began to pour money into the Clinton Foundation. He donated between $1 million and $5 million, even though it was later revealed his entire net worth was only $5 million.

After a two-hour dinner with Hillary Clinton in New York City in September 2008, Singh told the press in his country that Hillary Clinton had informed him Democrats would not block the nuclear deal and that she had promised to give "all the support" it needed to pass.

Singh simply said "the payment could have been made by someone else on his behalf" when confronted about the fact that his supposed donation to the Clinton Foundation nearly amounted to his entire fortune.

No one ever learned who had provided the payment in Singh's name, but the nuclear deal that Hillary Clinton once opposed eventually passed with her support.

Pressuring Bangladesh to open mines:

Canadian businessman Stephen Dattels gave the Clinton Foundation two million shares of stock in his company, Polo Resources, in June 2009.

The stocks were worth around $40,000 at the time.

9 more at the link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-hillary-clinton-kept-her-wealthy-friends-close-while-at-state-department/2015/10/05/5cfbe884-6930-11e5-9223-70cb36460919_story.html

The note to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton from liberal financier George Soros demanded “urgent attention from the highest levels of the U.S. government.” Clinton swiftly alerted a top aide to what she described as a “very forceful message which is good — and needed.”

The e-mail exchange, in which Soros warned of growing unrest in Albania, illustrates how Clinton interacted with major donors to her family’s causes during her tenure at the State Department, staying in touch with her political network before her 2016 run for the Democratic presidential nomination. And they show how these donors, some of them with interests before the U.S. government, gained high-level access to press their policy concerns inside the Clinton-led State Department.

Soros, a top contributor to the Clinton Foundation, was one of several major donors whose messages were disclosed by the State Department last week as part of the ongoing release of the former secretary’s e-mails. Other exchanges included references to entertainment mogul Haim Saban, who has said he would pay “whatever it takes” to propel Clinton to the White House in 2016, as well as other major Clinton Foundation donors such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, fashion industry executive Susie Tompkins Buell and Ukrainian steel magnate Viktor Pinchuk.

The e-mails that mention donors — numbering a few dozen out of the thousands of pages of messages released so far — do not show that financial supporters were able to alter policy decisions. But the dynamic points to one of the unusual aspects of Clinton’s record at the State Department. Because she and her family have raised so much money over the years from wealthy individuals and major corporations — for political campaigns as well as the sprawling global charity founded by her husband, former president Bill Clinton — her public business as secretary inevitably brought her in contact with private interests that helped boost her family’s philanthropy and income.

Republicans have accused Hillary Clinton of potential conflicts of interest in mixing her public and private work.

Clinton aides declined to comment for this article but have waved away such suggestions in the past. They have said that interactions with prominent players in the world of finance and politics are to be expected of a secretary of state and that there is no indication of any impropriety.

The e-mails show that, in some cases, donors were granted face-to-face contact with top officials.

Soros secured a meeting with Clinton in 2010 to discuss U.S. government funding for the American University of Central Asia, an educational institution that Soros helped support in the former Soviet Union.

Pinchuk, who has pledged more than $10 million to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, met with a top Clinton aide to speak on behalf of Ukraine’s strongman president and to try to soothe tensions with Washington over that country’s human rights record and its growing closeness with Russian President Vladimir Putin while resisting Europe.

“I wanted to tell you that I met with Pinchuk who was asked by [then-Ukrainian President Viktor] Yanukovych to convey his strong continuing interest in integrating with Europe,” Melanne Verveer, the Clinton aide, wrote on Sept. 26, 2011, in an e-mail to Clinton.

The message acknowledged that the Ukrainian leader had “antagonized all sides in the last few weeks,” partly because of an upcoming trial of an opposition political leader. Verveer wrote after her conversation with Pinchuk that the Ukrainians are “looking for a way to get beyond” the human rights fallout from the trial.

It is not clear from the e-mails whether Clinton replied to Verveer. But the State Department pressed Yanukovych for changes until 2014, when he fled Kiev after uniformed marksmen fired on hundreds of demonstrators protesting his coziness with Putin and his refusal to join the European Union.

A spokesman for Pinchuk said the e-mail simply showed how the Ukrainian industrialist “tried to keep Ukraine’s European integration hopes alive during difficult times by talking to a wide range of Western diplomats, including Melanne Verveer,” whom he had known for some time.

Verveer was one of several close deputies who helped then-Secretary Clinton keep tabs on supporters. She had been Clinton’s chief of staff when she was first lady and was named by Secretary Clinton to be ambassador at large for global women’s issues.

Verveer told Clinton in 2010 about upcoming meetings with Gates, who along with his wife, Melinda Gates, is one of the biggest overall donors to the Clinton Foundation, providing more than $25 million.

In a November 2010 e-mail to Clinton, Verveer relayed details of an event held by designer Diane von Furstenberg, who along with her husband, Barry Diller, have provided about $80,000 to Clinton causes, according to a review of campaign and foundation records.

Verveer suggested that Clinton accept an award and speaking invitation offered from the couple’s foundation.

“I have no doubt you would be very warmly embraced and DVF and Barry are so fond of you,” Verveer wrote. The following year, Clinton received a “lifetime leadership award” from von Furstenberg’s foundation.

Other Verveer e-mails described support that Wal-Mart provided for a women’s entrepreneurship initiative that the Clinton-led State Department promoted. The Walton family, which founded the retail giant, is famously conservative. But it has always had a soft spot for Bill and Hillary Clinton, who served as governor and first lady when the Arkansas-based firm took off as an international retail power. Hillary Clinton was named to the Wal-Mart board in the 1980s, and the family and the company have supported Clinton campaigns and projects over the years.

Randy Hargrove, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said that the women’s empowerment forum was a “signature, priority initiative” for the company and that executives’ contacts with the Obama administration have extended well beyond Clinton.

Verveer wrote to Clinton in June 2011 to tell her that Buell, who has contributed more than $10 million to Clinton causes, had donated $200,000 to support a future international trade meeting in San Francisco.

“She’s thrilled it’s in SF and that you’re keynoting,” Verveer wrote. “She wants it to be wonderful for you (as we all do). I will go out in a few weeks and plan with her, but wanted you to know.”

The e-mails show that some communication with donors occurred through Thomas Nides, a senior aide who was deputy secretary for management and resources at the State Department.

“In my attempt to reach out,” Nides wrote in a September 2011 note to Clinton, he had “spoken to many of your friends.”

Nides’s message focused on Saban, the billionaire entertainment mogul and fierce pro-Israel advocate who has provided more than $2 million to Clinton campaigns through the years and more than $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

“One person in particular wanted to know if you ask for me to call, Haim Saban,” Nides wrote. “I said of coarse [sic].”

An e-mail from Saban’s wife, Cheryl, with the subject line “Oh my GOD,” was forwarded in May 2011 to Clinton by aide Huma Abedin. The e-mail, originally addressed to an aide to former president Clinton and copied to Abedin, was entirely redacted in the copy released to the public last week, except for the words “We got back from Africa Thursday night.” Hillary Clinton responded with a one-word e-mail to Abedin: “nice.”

On Oct. 15, 2011, Abedin wrote an e-mail to Hillary Clinton about a call from “Haim,” apparently seeking her help in connecting him with Bill Clinton. “WJC wasn’t answering so I tried you,” Abedin wrote.

Nides declined to comment for this article. Neither Verveer nor Saban responded to requests for comment.

On Oct. 15, 2011, Nides passed along an e-mail from Andrew Tisch, an heir to the Loews fortune, who applauded a recent speech Clinton had made to the New York Economic Club and for which Tisch gave the introduction. “I heard nothing but praise for your remarks,” he wrote, telling Clinton that he and his family “became huge fans of yours at ... Lynn de Rothschild’s parties.”

Over time, the Tisch and de Rothschild families provided six-figure contributions to Clinton causes, according to a review of Federal Election Commission and Clinton Foundation donor reports.