IRS must disclose if it criminally investigated Hill and Bill Clinton's foundation

It looks like the Clintons just got the bad news: a U.S. tax court judge has ordered the Internal Revenue Service to disclose whether it criminally investigated the Clinton Foundation.

This ruling was part of an ongoing case involving whistleblowers who have long alleged wrongdoing on the part of the charity which bears the name of former President Bill Clinton and his execrable wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Judge David Gustafson pointed to a “gap” in IRS records and said that the agency’s claim to have never criminally investigated the Clintons’ charity “was not supported by the administrative record and thus constituted an abuse of discretion.” In other words, someone's telling a fib and needs a 'time out'.

[H/T Just the News]

Most of the details of the Clinton Foundation case along with whistleblowers, Lawrence W. Doyle and John F. Moynihan, who are respected forensic financial investigators, according to Just the News, have remained sealed. However, the judge has now authorized his April 22nd ruling, which remanded the case back to the IRS Whistleblower Office, according to investigative reporter John Solomon on his Just the News outlet.

“The WO must further investigate to determine whether CI [criminal investigative division] proceeded with an investigation based on petitioners’ information and collected proceeds,” the ruling stated. “It seems clear we should remand the case to the WO so that it can explore this gap.”

Just the News noted that the judge also declined Doyle and Moynihan’s request to accept a deposition from an Arkansas state official or to compel discovery in the case. Gustafson determined that to do so would have been “outside the scope of proper discovery” and basically tossed away any hopes of a revelatory trial and means the Clintons will skate free, as the ruling class almost always does.

“Petitioners evidently look forward to a trial in which they hope to prove wrongdoing and tax evasion by the target entities and to prove dereliction of duty by the IRS,” he stated. “There will be no such trial in this case.”

However, the ruling helps to perpetuate long-standing allegations that the Clinton tag-team used their foundation to launder money for political favors from foreign nations.

In December 2018, Doyle and Moynihan testified before Congress that they had filed an IRS whistleblower complaint against the organization.

They alleged that the Clinton Foundation engaged in illegal foreign lobbying when it accepted donations from overseas while trying to influence U.S. policy.

The charity “began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and throughout its existence,” Moynihan stated before a House panel.

“As such, the foundation should’ve registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). Ultimately, the Foundation and its auditors conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as a (foreign) agent, therefore the foundation is not entitled to its 501c3 tax-exempt privileges as outlined in IRS 170 (c)2,” he said.

The Clinton Foundation, in response, declared itself to be “one of the most heavily scrutinized charitable organizations in the world” which had nonetheless “demonstrably improved the lives of millions of people across America and around the world, while earning top ratings from charity watchdog groups in the process.”

And if you believe the scrutiny claim, I have a creampuff of a car to sell you.

Like Monica's blue dress, it's time for the Clintons to come clean.

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet

Elijah Cummings' wife breaking the law by refusing to disclose nonprofit docs

Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, the wife of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) may have broken the law by refusing to disclose financial documents relating to her nonprofit. Worse, this suggests a possible conflict with Cummings' supervisory role as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Gee, ya think?

The Daily Caller News Foundation conducted an investigation by Luke Rosiak. He asserts that she is breaking the law by not disclosing documents relating to her nonprofit, the Center for Global Policy Solutions, which is closely related to a for-profit consulting group, Group Policy Solutions LLC [my italics].

The nonprofit received millions of dollars from groups that have special interests in the Oversight Government Reform Committee headed by Rep. Cummings, and this possibly suggests that their donations to his wife's nonprofit will buy them favorable treatment like it probably did for those who donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State under the Obama administration. [In fact, donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up when she lost her political influence.] A complaint in this regard was filed to the IRS by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC).

Three separate groups reportedly have requested the nonprofit's forms, and Rockeymoore Cummings has refused to disclose documents relating to her nonprofit. She also refused to discuss the matter with the NLPC and did not answer formal requests for records from the Daily Caller or the Washington Examiner. Instead, Mr. Cummings pulled out his Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" and used rule number 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon" and charged that those of the NLPC who complained about his wife's refusal to turn over the documents are conservatives.

He never explained how their being conservatives would negate any legal issues because it simply conflates two unrelated issues!

Obfuscation is the key.

Sally Wagenmaker, a lawyer who specializes in nonprofit tax law, suggested that refusal to hand over the documents breaks the law.

“Wow. That’s illegal,” Wagenmaker asserted. “It’s interesting and sad. You have the right to get them. The organization absolutely is required to provide the information, so to not do so would appear to be flaunting the law.”

“As a family member of an elected official, we’d expect high-road, integrity, and compliance. If anyone should be responding promptly, it should be her. He should be above approach,” Wagenmaker added.

Rockeymoore Cummings gave no reason for her refusal to hand over the documents in spite of the fact that the IRS requires that nonprofits disclose information about their operations in exchange for their tax-exempt status on an IRS form called a Form 990.

Wagenmaker added:

"One of the policy reasons for disclosure is to be able to to illuminate conflict of interest, and the media’s role is to help illuminate that: is she trying to hide information, is she being secretive, does she think she’s above the law? And one of the ways that happens is through the required disclosure of 990s."

The report arises after Cummings recently subpoenaed President Trump’s business records. Trump filed a suit to block Cummings’ subpoena over these records.

Congressional Democrats, including Cummings, have called for hearings to investigate the Trump Foundation. However, the hearings might also raise concerns over whether Cummings and his wife have any conflicts of interests regarding his wife’s nonprofit. And just what's in those elusive documents of her nonprofit?

Tom Anderson, an investigator with the NLPC, said that nonprofits have to disclose their business practices:

The problem is there are millions of dollars coming into these entities from corporations and special interests with business before Elijah Cummings, and any time you have that, every rule has to be followed or else it opens the door for massive corruption. And that holds whether the politician in question is Donald Trump, Elijah Cummings or someone else.

The NLPC investigator said in a conversation with Cummings, he “went on to rant about how we’re a conspiracy right-wing group for super-mega billionaires, which sounds like something out of Star Wars.” That's Alinsky's rule 5 once again.

Anderson reiterated that Cummings did not provide any evidence to suggest his complaint to the IRS was wrong.

“We’re going to Johnson + Johnson, Prudential, lining up all the dots,” Anderson said, regarding companies that have donated to the nonprofit, suggesting that it could raise concerns over conflict of interest.

The American public awaits with great anticipation. Well, all except for the folks on the left.


Please consider following Brain Flushings and also visit the ads on the pages. Follow me on Parler.com, my handle is @Heyrobo, or on Twitter--my handle there is: @RobHoey 
Thanks.



Tweet

Charity begins at Hillary's home

It was inevitable--Hillary Clinton took the $250,000 Harvey Weinstein donated to her failed campaign and put it in her other pocket--the Clinton Foundation. 

The foundation said Sunday that donations ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 have already been spent [like a drunken sailor].

It comes as no surprise that she refused to return the money because she has the ethics of a scorpion.

The foundation's spokesman Craig Minassian alluded to the fact that Clinton had no plans on returning the money:

"Suggesting @ClintonFdn return funds from our 330,000+ donors ignores the fact that donations have been used to help people across the world."

Yes, it isn't as if there was any more money in her coffers they could have used after returning Weinstein's dirty money. And it isn't as if all the money they receive is used to "help people across the world." According to  Rush Limbaugh  as reported by Punditfact, only 15 percent of donations actually goes to charity while the remaining 85 percent goes for foundation expenses.

The calls to return Weinstein's money came after over 30 women went public accusing the Hollywood mogul of sexual assault and rape. There were also allegations coming from Britain.

Hillary audaciously alluded to President Trump being responsible for Weinstein's behavior, in spite of the fact that Weinstein has presumably been a sexual predator for about as long as Bill Clinton has.

Dozens of Democratic Party politicians, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Al Franken, Sen. Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren, and Sen. Cory Booker have all said they'd donate their Weinstein donations to charities focused on women's rights, which means that it will not go to the Clinton Foundation as they allow nations that violate women's rights to donate to them. Saudi Arabia first comes to mind.

Hillary said that she was "shocked and appalled" after the Weinstein allegations were revealed, even more shocked and appalled than the allegations made against Bill because not as many women came forward.

Not including the extramarital affairs Bill had with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers that he admitted to, many others came forward accusing him of the same thing. 

But in terms of sexual misconduct, there were three women: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey who came forward. 

"What other people are saying, what my former colleagues are saying, is they're going to donate it to charity, and of course I will do that," Hillary claimed on CNN (aka Clinton News Network). "I give 10 percent of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that. There's no--there's no doubt about it."

I doubt it. I doubt everything that woman, Hillary Clinton, says.


Tweet

Selective leftist outrage

"After my election, I have more flexibility."--Barack Obama to Russian President Medvedev on 'hot mic'

It's almost laughable how the left sounds the alarm over an alleged relationship of the Trump administration with the Russians. 

They point out how Paul Manafort was an adviser to the Ukrainian president, a pro-Russian and how Carter Page, another Trump adviser, was involved in energy deals with Russian companies. And how Jeff Sessions actually spoke to a Russian official while on the Senate Armed Services Committee--even though it's a normal part of his job.

And of course, there's Michael Flynn and the speech he gave in Moscow as a private citizen . . . and so on.

As Peter Schweizer said, in an article for Fox News, it's important to examine these relationships, but "Still, those pushing the narrative of troubling ties to Russia lose all credibility by wholly ignoring the far deeper and more troubling relationships the Clintons and their closest aides have maintained with Russian government officials for years, including while they were in public office."

But the big difference here is that the Clinton deals involved enormous favors that benefitted Russian interests and involved hundreds of millions of dollars.

Like the speech Bill Clinton gave in Moscow in 2010 and received half a million dollars. Renaissance Capital, a Moscow firm paid the fee--a firm with close ties to Russian intelligence, and they admit it proudly.

No Russian donor was too embedded in Russian concerns to refuse. Schweizer mentions the following: 

Victor Vekselberg: a Putin confidant and head of Renova Group

Andrey Vavilov: a former Russian government official and Chairman of SuperOx, a research company that was part of "nuclear Cluster" at a government research facility

Elena Buturina: wife of a former Mayor of Moscow. She appeared to donate to the Clintons via JSC Inteco which she controls

And of course we have the 2010 Uranium One deal in which the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in "donations" from a Canadian uranium company that was sold to the Russian government. In order to seal the deal, several U.S. federal agencies needed to approve it, including Hillary's State Department. The Russians ended up with 20 percent of America's uranium which went to Rosatom, an entity that controls Russia's nuclear arsenal.

The fact that some of the Clinton Foundation donations were not disclosed by the Clintons should trouble all of us. President Obama required the Foundation to disclose all contributions as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State, but she didn't. It was the Canadian tax records that uncovered the deal.

Then there's one of Hillary's closest aides, John Podesta who actually went into business with the Russian government while a Hillary Clinton adviser as Secretary of State.

Podesta was on the executive board of an energy company called Joule Unlimited. The Russian government invested a billion rubles (about $35 million) in the company. The money came from an investment fund called Rusnano, a fund started in 2007 by Putin and described as "Putin's Child" by Russian Education and Science Minister Andrei Fursenko.

Rusnano investments could also have military applications and it would be surprising if it didn't.

When Podesta went to the White House in 2014, where he served as counselor to Obama, he did not disclose his board membership in one of the Joule entities on his financial disclosure form. 

But the hypocritical left isn't concerned about what appears to be an actual intimate relationship with the Russians because it had nothing to do with Donald Trump.


Tweet

Hillary did some post-election "soul-searching" & comes up empty

Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state, former senator of New York, professional politician and wife of former President William Jefferson Clinton, said that she has done her share of "soul-searching" since losing the presidential election to a TV personality and real estate investor, Donald Trump.

She has searched and searched, high and low for her soul, but cannot find it. Why? Because she doesn't have one.

The champion of identity politics said "Let us hope there is a wave of young women running for office in America." She made this statement at an event hosted by Girls, Inc., where she was receiving yet another undeserved award, the Champion for Girls Award.

I believe the term 'girls' is politically incorrect. For Clinton's people, it should be called the Champion for the Gender You Want to See Yourself As Award.

If Clinton would only get her head out of her nether regions she might discover that there is a wave of women, young and old, running for office in America, and yes, even holding office. Many of them, in fact, are in the Republican party.

Clinton, who was so arrogant in the presidential election that she didn't bother to campaign in several blue states, has since maintained a low profile and large silhouette since her miserable loss. Her comment about that loss was "life hands all of us setbacks."

For Hillary, the setback came in the form of dried up donations to her "Foundation" that helped line her pantsuit pockets. 

Once foreign countries and American interest groups realized she would not have the ability to further their needs, they dropped her faster than Bill's first move on an aide.

Clinton babbled on about future women leaders: "They are the history makers, the glass ceiling breakers of tomorrow. They are among the reasons I am so optimistic about our future."

But she wouldn't stop: "Now, I've had my ups and downs [like Bill, but not in the same way]. In the last month, I've done my share of sleeping, a little soul-searching and reflecting; long walks in the woods, and those moments. I am thankful for my own village. My community of family and friends who have supported and encouraged me," she said, alluding to her book, It Takes a Village.


Tweet

Will Trump do what Trump promised?

President-elect Donald Trump has repeated his promise to build a wall across the southern border, repeal and replace ObamaCare and deport criminal illegal aliens. 

He also promised to "lock her up," referring to Hillary Clinton over her illegal personal server and "pay to play" with the Clinton Foundation. He said that he would appoint a special prosecutor and keep Comey out of the picture.

There will be a wall and the roads will be rebuilt along with other infrastructure, the debt will be paid, jobs will be in abundance and  there will be unicorns and rainbows. 

Yes, the world will respect us again. 

Except maybe the wall will not run across the entire southern border. "Certain areas, a wall is more appropriate," President-elect Trump said. "I'm very good at this; it's called construction." Other parts may have a fence and lots of Border Security guards watching to make sure nobody crosses over our border.

And maybe repealing "all" of ObamaCare won't be necessary. Maybe we can leave in the parts about keeping your under 26-year-old kid on the policy and leave in the pre-existing conditions clause.

And deporting 2-3 million illegal immigrants doesn't have to happen so fast, but we can deport the felons and rapists and drug dealers, and other 'very very' bad people. And let's not forget about the plan of "extreme vetting" of Syrian refugees.

"What we are going to do is get the people that are [criminals] and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers," Trump said on '60 Minutes.' "We have a lot of these people. Probably two million, it could be even three million. We are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate . . . after the border is secured and after everything gets normalized . . . we're going to make a determination on [other undocumented immigrants] . . . But before we make that determination . . . we want to secure our border."

So even though he promised us in the primaries that he would immediately deport all 11 million illegal immigrants living here, it's clear now that the Republican administration was "not looking for mass deportations." 

That should make many undocumented Democratic voters happy.

The "lock her up" thing?

Well, maybe we're being too harsh on Clinton. Maybe we should take care of more important matters.

"She did some bad things, I mean she did some bad things," Trump told Leslie Stahl of "60 Minites" in that way he has of using monosyllabics and repetition for emphasis or to show that he really really means it.

Stahl responded, "I know, but a special prosecutor?"

"I don't want to hurt them, I don't want to hurt them," Trump said. "They're, they're good people. I don't want to hurt them."

He really doesn't want to hurt them, I can tell you that.

Trump told "60 Minutes" that he would eschew the $400 thousand per year salary and only take a dollar as president.

When talking about the recent anti-Trump riots that are going on across the country he said the media coverage represented a "double standard." He added that "If Hillary had won and if my people went out and protested, everybody would say, 'Oh, that's a terrible thing.' And it would have been a much different attitude. There is a different attitude."

Trump added, however, that he was "saddened" by reports that some of his supporters harassed minorities since the election.

"And I say, 'Stop it.' . . . I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it."

Let me be clear, I am willing to give Donald Trump the chance to follow up on his promises. I want him to succeed, unlike some leftists who would rather have the country go down with the new 'Captain,' so to speak. 

There is no way that Hillary Clinton should have been elected, in spite of those low information voters who believe otherwise. The best thing about this election for me, wasn't that Trump won, it was that the Clinton machine and its arrogant belief that Hillary was destined to victory lost. 

I have to admit, the tears of the snowflakes on the left were a wonderful thing to see.



Tweet

Corruption? No problem if you're a Clinton

Doug Band, a top aide to former President Bill Clinton wrote in 2012 that Chelsea "Howdy Doody" Clinton used the money laundering front known as the Clinton Foundation (aka the Clinton Global Initiative) to finance "her wedding and her life for a decade." And a top Foundation donor was responsible for "killing" unfavorable press coverage. This came as an internal audit of the Foundation found many conflicts of interest and "quid pro quo benefits," according to WikiLeaks emails uncovered Sunday.

Band, the founder of global strategies company Teneo, wrote the Jan. 4, 2012 email to John Podesta and two other Clinton aides when he learned that Chelsea told "one of the [President] bush 43 kids" and others about an "internal investigation of money within the foundation." He added that such chatter was "not smart."

"The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents . . . " Band wrote. "I hope that you will speak to her and end this[.] Once we go down this road . . ."

This just in:

Now after going through the Weiner computer's 650,000 emails, just two days before the election, FBI speed readers have determined that Comey's original [ass]essment still stands and the matter over Clinton's illegal server, her illegal use of Foundation money, the million dollar birthday gift to Bill while Hill was Sec. of State, the Clinton maid being given access to classified documents and emails, Hillary's destroying of the supoenaed emails by Congress, isn't enough to indict a Clinton. 

That would take an act of God.

This is the epitome of corruption and Trump is right--the "system is corrupt." I don't know how James Comey can look at his reflection in the mirror now that he's gone over to the dark side.

This has been the most disturbing and most disgusting election I have ever seen. Obama split us apart in horrible, racist ways and Clinton is following his lead and doing the same thing and adding the "gender card."


I can't wait for this election to be over, although I suspect Clinton will win and the country will go far left--that would be horrible.

But we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.



Tweet

Clinton Foundation chose to hide $1 million "gift" and more

The terrorist-finding nation of Qatar gave the Clinton Foundation a $1,000,000 gift which they accepted and 'forgot' to notify the State Department that it had done so. This is a clear violation of the ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed when she unfortunately became Secretary of State in 2009.

The terms of the agreement has Clinton promising that the foundation would notify the State Department's ethics official in all cases in which a foreign government wished to donate or if a foreign donor wished to "increase materially" its contributions. 

In other words, Hillary Clinton should have notified the State Department even before the money was received so that the State Department could determine whether the foreign government was buying influence through Clinton and her position in government.

It's becoming increasingly clear that it's going to take a lot more than Hillary merely breaking the law as a knee-jerk reaction to put her away.

The million dollars was pledged in 2011 to mark Bill Clinton's 65th birthday. It certainly beats getting a tie or shirt.

Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation's foreign policy director, sent out an email to colleagues saying the Qataris wanted to meet Bill Clinton "'for five minutes' in NYC to present [the] check." This was during Hillary's time as Secretary of State, a position she held and abused until Feb. 2013.

The foundation spokesman Brian Cookstra said the "gift" didn't constitute a "material increase" in Qatar's contributions.

The State Department said it had no record of the donation from the terrorist-funding nation and said  it was up to the foundation to submit it for review, which evidently, they didn't.

This was not an isolated incident in which a foreign country has given oodles of money to the Clinton Foundation, and it constitutes a serious conflict of interest at worst, or a serious lack in judgment at best.

I would put my money on both.

Donald Trump has often called for Hillary Clinton to return donations from countries that have poor human rights records, but the chances of that are about the same as a goldfish learning algebra.

The Foundation admitted that no complete list of donors to the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a health program of the foundation's, has been published since 2010, despite Clinton lying 2 years prior that a list would be published annually. 

Then we have Morocco.

Right after the first presidential debate in which Hillary skirted a question about charges of "pay to play" at the Clinton Foundation, another trove of WikiLeaks emails came out with charges that Hillary herself was at the heart of the $12 million commitment from Morocco's King Mohammed VI. 

The most remarkable elements of the charge is that the allegation came from Huma Weiner Abedin, Hillary's closest aide said to be like a "daughter" to her. Huma described the connection in a January 2015 email exchange with two top advisers to Hillary, John Podesta and Robby Mook.

Huma wrote that "this was HRC's idea" that she [Hillary] speak at a meeting of the Clinton Foundation in Morocco in May 2015 as an explicit condition for the $12 million commitment from the king.

Abedin wrote: "It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it."

The "mess" partially involves the fact that the three advisers were talking about Clinton pulling out of the speaking engagement because it was scheduled only a month prior to her official launch of her presidential campaign and would look suspiciously unethical.

Hillary unethical? Who'd a thunk?

Huma wrote back later the same day suggesting that the king would be furious if Hillary pulled out of the event.

What was originally thought to be a $1 million payout by Morocco turned out to be $12 million and that was just too many greenbacks to pass up. This showed just how big a role Clinton played in bringing in the money to the foundation--but a clear conflict of interest.

"Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation," Huma wrote. "If hrc was not part if (sic) it, meeting was a non-starter." She also added that the foundation had not come up with the idea to hold the event in Morocco--that idea was Hillary's:

"This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting."

One can only wonder what big foreign donors to the Clinton Global Initiative got in return for the 'gifts' they gave to Hillary and her posse. 

And one can only wonder what it will take for justice to be served with the Clintons.




Tweet

Abedin "clueless" about emails on home computer

Huma Weiner Abedin reportedly says she hasn't a clue how emails regarding the latest Hillary Clinton "not an investigation" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation got onto her computer.

"It must be the Russians," Huma might be saying. "Yeah, that's the ticket--Putin, Putin's people hacked my secure computer and when Anthony was tweeting his junk, the Russians cut and pasted my stuff onto my personal computer. That must be it because I'd never put classified stuff where Anthony puts his stuff."

So Huma supposedly said she hasn't a clue how tens of thousands of emails related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's "non-investigation" of Clinton's personal illegal server were found on a laptop she shared with her strange and estranged husband, disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner (aka Carlos Danger).

The Washington Post reported that Abedin wasn't a regular user of the laptop that Anthony showed his lap on. And the paper also said that Huma's lawyers didn't bother to search the laptop in question after she agreed to turn over all related emails to the State Department, because what the lawyers didn't know, wouldn't hurt them.

According to a senior law enforcement official telling Fox News, the laptop contained "five digits," or at least 10,000 emails of interest to investigators. Hopefully the 'of interest' to them has nothing to do with Anthony Weiner and that they wore thick gloves when handling the device.

Law enforcement officials believe it's highly unlikely all the newfound emails are duplicates, as the lying Clinton campaign has suggested (and how would they know in the first place?). 

Imagine the duplicates: "I just bought the cutest yoga pants" over and over." Yeah, sure.


In any case, FBI officials will probably use a computer program to weed out the duplicates (if they exist) and discuss in detail those in Clinton's campaign who evidently knew there were duplicates. How did they know and when did they know it?

The New York Times reported that several Clinton zombies have suggested Hillary throw Huma under the bus or at least distance herself from the Muslim Brotherhood-connected woman (who she and Bill had introduced to Anthony Weiner in the first place). 

Huma, as you may recall, was working for Hillary's State Department and was also being paid by the Clinton Foundation at a consulting firm called Teneo. That's a conflict of interest, but hey, it was for a good financial cause.

Hillary stood by Huma when Weiner's first online sex scandal got him booted from Congress and stood by Huma when Weiner's second sex scandal lost him his bid for Mayor of New York. Hillary stood by her woman because she knew exactly what Huma was going through. 

Huma didn't go with Hillary to campaign in Florida, but instead worked in the campaign's headquarters in Brooklyn.

Hopefully, this will all be ironed out and the FBI will get to the bottom of the server scandal and Hillary will get what she deserves, which has nothing to do with being POTUS.

Huma too should get what's coming to her and be held accountable for her sworn deposition in June that she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and . . . gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."

Anthony too should get what's coming to him and be held accountable for his "sexting"  or sending sexually suggestive material on Twitter to a teenage girl. 

The FBI announced Friday that it had restarted an investigation into Clinton's emails sent on her private illegal server system while secretary of state. The Weiner case was the catalyst for the reopening of Clinton's case.

Hillary's latest defense she is planning to use is that she does not remember being secretary of state.

Is this newfound information simply Comey's way of exonerating himself from his huge screwup over the summer when he basically laid out ever reason to indict Clinton but failed to go through with it?

You make the call. I welcome your comments.




Tweet

WikiLeaked: What Huma implied about Clinton's Moroccan trade-off

Hillary Clinton was questioned about charges of "pay to play" at the Clinton Foundation in the first presidential debate and, as is her wont, she was an artful dodger. But within hours after the debate, WikiLeaks produced a new load of emails depicting her at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco.

Ironically, it wasn't Putin or Trump or a guy named Harmon Glunk who made the charge; it was Hillary's most loyal aide, Huma Abedin. 

Huma described the connection in an email exchange from January of last year with John Podesta and Robby Mook.

Abedin, the soon-to-be ex-wife of Carlos Danger (aka Anthony Weiner) wrote that "this was HRC's idea" in regard to her speaking at a meeting of the Clinton Foundation (aka Clinton Global Initiative) in Morocco in May of 2015. The purpose of Hillary's going there to "speak" was to finagle a $12 million commitment from King Mo.

"She created this mess and she knows it," Huma wrote to Hillary's henchmen, Mook and Podesta. 

The 'mess,' in part was how her three advisers wanted her to have no part in the speaking engagement as she was getting ready to launch her presidency campaign. They believed it would likely raise questions about her role at the foundation and be viewed as a serious conflict of interest should she become "THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!" as she puts it so loudly.

The month prior to the speaking engagement, Politico reported that the Clinton Foundation was accepting a "major donation" of no less than $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned company, OCP, a phosphate exporter. The report said that it would be "unlikely" that Hillary would attend the event the following month as she had just began her campaign (to the chagrin of informed voters who have her number, so to speak).

As it turned out, the influence peddling came to $12 million and Hillary almost passed out from the shock (as she is also wont to do). 

She struggled with her decision about whether she should stay or go and this was due to the fact that her role with lining the coffers of her foundation was a lot bigger than the public knew--emphasizing the distinction between what she says publicly versus what she says privately.

As early as January, Robby Mook indicated that Hillary was wrestling over whether to attend the event--her advisers worried about how it would look in terms of her involvement with the foundation and its fundraising.

The email subject line was: "FYI CGI Africa." The CGI being the Clinton Global Initiative. The email was sent to Podesta and Abedin around the same time Carlos Danger was also online sending something else to young women who would have him.

"Came up on our call with HRC," Mook wrote. "John flagged the same issues we discussed, Huma. HRC said she's sitll (sic) considering."

Huma later replied that King Mohammed would be totally pissed off if Hillary pulled out. She wrote: "Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part if (sic) it, meeting was a non-starter."

Perhaps King Mo had 'a thing' for Hillary, but he sure wanted her there.

It turns out that the idea for the event to be held in Morocco was Hillary's. "This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request," Abedin wrote. "The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting."

The big question now is what did Morocco and other donors to the Clinton Foundation get for their money? 

Possibly the first female president that money could buy.


Tweet

Three strokes and you're out

Hillary Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, is leaving her twit of a husband, former Congressman Anthony Weiner. It took her long enough.

This is now the third time "The Weiner" was caught on Twitter exposing his junk to women multiple times for at least 19 months when he was first 'exposed'.

"After long and painful consideration and work on my marriage, I have made the decision to separate from my husband," Abedin said in a statement. 

It's noteworthy that she said "my marriage" not "our marriage." It indicates that she was the only one invested in the marriage, in spite of the fact that "The Weiner" was out of a job and depended upon her income that she earned working for Hillary Clinton in the State Department and illegally for the Clinton Foundation. 

"The Weiner" left politics after being outed by several online women and failed to win the New York City mayoral nomination. Even uber liberal New York City wasn't ready for an online flasher . . . I give them less than a year after a movie comes out about him touting his struggle with life.

"Anthony and I remain devoted to doing what is best for our son, who is the light of our life" she said. She was evidently discounting the Twitter session where "The Weiner" tweeted his junk to a woman while the light of their lives, Jordan, was in bed next to "The Weiner." 

Huma went on, "During this difficult time, I ask for respect for our privacy."

"The Weiner" (aka Carlos Danger, to those women who viewed his namesake on Twitter) didn't appear concerned about his privacy when he was on social media. And Huma is most concerned about her privacy when it comes to State Department and Clinton Foundation emails.

A New York Post article claimed that "The Weiner" sent photos of the latest [unidentified] woman, describing his sexual fantasies and masturbation in messages to her, referring to her as "literally a fantasy chick."

Anthony Weiner, 51, closed down his Twitter account Monday after he told the Post that he and the fantasy chick "have been friends for some time," adding that his conversations "were always appropriate," never about how he hates his wife but is staying in the marriage for the sake of his son and her income.

When asked to define 'appropriate' he said that Jordan was always asleep during his online sessions and Huma was never home. "How much more appropriate can you get?" he asked.

Just kidding. He has no idea of what "appropriate" means.



Tweet

Hillary claims foundation is transparent

If Hillary Clinton decided to tell the truth about anything, it would make the headlines. Now she's defending the family's Clinton Foundation against Donald Trump's criticism. She said that the foundation is more transparent than his business interests.

Hillary called into CNN's "AC360" but still hasn't held a press conference for almost a year. The purpose of the call was to have a safe, one-sided conversation to attack Trump's suggestion the the Clinton Foundation has been used as a "pay-for-play" scheme while she was at the State Department.

"What Trump has said is ridiculous," she said. "My work as secretary of state was not influenced by any outside forces," she lied. "I made policies based on what I thought was right." She said the foundation provided "life-saving work" and claimed that neither she nor Bill had ever drawn a salary like Chelsea's $900,000 annual salary she made right out of college with no experience.

The wannabe "FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!" added, "You know more about the foundation than you know about anything concerning Donald Trump's wealth, his business, his tax returns" [and her deleted emails, her health, the true purpose of Benghazi and her failure there, and the influence bought by Islamic leaders].

Clinton's top campaign staff and allies are on the defensive over the allegations regarding the foundation. They argue that the foundation has helped millions of people around the world, but Trump's business interests carry their own blind spots. 

But whether or not the foundation has helped people is not the issue, anymore than Hillary Clinton's intent to criminally share classified information on her private email server was intentional.

 In the first case, the issue is that Clinton provided special privileges to those who donated to the foundation and held audience with them as secretary of state.

In the second instance, the issue of intent has nothing to do with the advocating an indictment. Having the private server was, by itself, enough to indict her under the espionage act.

In the past, Trump had donated to the Clinton Foundation, but now believes that while Clinton was secretary of state, those who donated to the foundation were given special access to her. This also appears to be corroborated in the emails recovered by Judicial Watch's FOIA request.

Clinton's last full-blown news conference was in Iowa in December 2015. The reason she refuses to hold news conferences is obvious: the more she talks and answers questions, the worse she does in the polls. 

But she will not be able to get another free pass on September 26th when she debates Donald Trump. Hopefully, he will stay on point, put aside the schoolyard banter and try to remain presidential.

And hopefully, she will be found out for who she really is.



Tweet

What Trump must do, and not do, to beat Clinton

Hillary Clinton has released her 2015 tax returns and so did her running mate Tim Kaine. They did it to pressure Donald Trump into following suit. 

Although Trump has refused to release his returns citing the fact that he's being audited, I believe he should release them . . . under one condition: that Clinton releases the speeches she made to various Wall Street companies as well as her medical records. Especially her medical records.

According to the campaign release, the Clintons paid $3.6 million in taxes on an adjusted gross income of only $10.6 million. It pays to be a public servant obviously--servants get paid a lot more than their employers.

The bulk of the Clinton income is derived from speaking fees totaling over $6 million largely made by Hillary before her April 2015 campaign balderdash tour. She was "flat broke" before those speeches, she said, in another obvious lie.

Another issue Trump should tackle is the Clinton Foundation and the foreign influence that was bought via the donations it received.

But Trump seems to lose focus whenever he's being attacked and often resorts to using an ad hominem strategy to fight back. It's a tactic that works well in junior high school, but not so much in politics. 

Hillary haters gonna hate; Trump haters gonna hate too. What Trump needs to do is go after the 8 years of Democratic failures: the economy, national security, immigration and health care.

If Donald Trump is hiding something on his tax returns it's eventually going to become public. He may as well release them. 

But with time running out before the November's election, he needs to win over the independent voters because Trump lovers gonna love; independents gonna decide. 

How can the Clintons justify earning $139 million between 2007 and 2014? 

Finally, what was Hillary's plan as secretary of state (having only a private email server) when someone needed to send her a classified email or she needed to send one out herself? And why did Huma Abedin have access to her email server?

The way it appears is that the only hope Trump has of beating Clinton, if he continues with the same tactics, is if they cart her off in an orange jump suit. But I'm afraid that isn't going to happen and I'm more afraid that our next president is going to be a seditious felon whose main interest is herself.



Tweet

Clinton's jobs record is like her Benghazi record

Don't you love it how the media constantly ambushes Republicans and asks softball questions to Democrats? If you're reading this, then that's a rhetorical question. If you're a liberal, then you might think asking Hillary a question like: "Do you support Hispanic Americans?" is a tough one.

Trump has been attacked by liberals such as David Letterman who asked him where his line of apparel is made, for example. Only 3% of all apparel in the USA is actually made here, so it made Trump look like he's a liar regarding his stance on creating American jobs. Of course, the truth is, Trump has created jobs while Hillary Clinton, not so much.

In fact, FoxNews.com reports that when Clinton was a New York senator, her jobs plan fell as flat as she left the men in Benghazi, but ended up helping the donors of the plan.

Hillary uses her jobs record as her campaign centerpiece in her campaign pitch. But a new report claims her economic initiatives fell flat for workers and, surprise, it benefitted her wealthy donors.

According to the Washington Post, a rather left wing rag, when Hillary was a senator from 2001 to 2009, she wasn't able to pass the "big ticket legislation" she introduced that was slated to help upstate New York. Manufacturing fell by about 25 percent and job growth stagnated, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Albany lost over 31,000 payroll jobs between October 2001 and December 2006, for example. Smaller scale projects also tanked but the media, always favoring the left, gave a positive picture. Jobs left the state right before her 2008 presidential run which she lost to someone with absolutely no job creating experience.

Donald Trump spoke in Detroit Monday citing the findings "devastating" and saying about Clinton that "She was all talk, no action."

That might have been Bill's biggest complaint as well, but let's not go there.

Clinton's campaign cites her "work" in New York as a blueprint for her presidency and tries to neutralize Trump's selling point of being a job creator and will boost the economy. But the report casts doubt on her ability to be effective. 

In fact, if you think about Hillary's excuses to exculpate her from indictments or impeachments, she uses incompetence as her excuse.

But when it came to getting a cash flow into the Clinton Foundation coffers, she was anything but incompetent. A number of companies she worked with upstate contributed to her campaign and the Clinton Foundation, leaving the question as to whether her financial deals had anything to do with a "pay-to-play" deal.

For instance, Senator Clinton formed a relationship with Corning in Steuben County, New York. She helped steer money their way through federal grants and legislation. But nothing she did for Corning helped reverse the economic decline in the county where Corning is based. So where did the money go?

Corning paid Clinton $225,500 to speak in 2014, and their chief executive co-hosted a fundraiser for her while Corning gave an additional $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to the Washington Post.

So Hillary may talk about Trump's ties made in China, but she is a far worse human being and the worst person who has ever been nominated for their party in the presidential election.

The only people whose lives have been positively effected by the Clintons are the Clintons. 

Even their daughter, Chelsea, walked into a $900,000 a year job for the Clinton Foundation, right out of college.

Charity definitely begins at home for them.




Tweet

Hillary: I call them the Federal Bureau of Security Inquiries

You've no doubt heard the expression, "If her lips are moving, she's lying." Well, attribute that saying to people like Hillary Clinton, the "Mother of Mendacity." Is there anything she will not lie about? She even lies about not lying.

For months Clinton has lied about the FBI investigation into her private email server. She referred to it over and over as a "security inquiry." This server was used to send and receive classified government emails, some of which are known as "Special Access Programs" (SAP).

SAP has a higher level of secrecy than Top Secret documents because it contains information about field operations and names of agents that could easily get them killed--as dead as the four men in Benghazi who were killed having nothing to do with the lie that it was over some obscure video.

On Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey was asked by Fox News about Hillary's claim that the FBI probe was merely a "security inquiry."  Comey said that he doesn't know what the term 'security inquiry' means and added, "We're conducting an investigation . . . that's what we do."

When Comey was informed that Hillary Clinton uses the phrase "security inquiry," he reiterated that  he's "not familiar with the term security inquiry."

Comey was also asked about the timing of the investigation since Clinton is the presumptive Democratic felon presidential nominee. He said he'd rather do the investigation "well" rather than fast and he's not "tethered" to a schedule.

FBI investigators have been meeting with Muslim Brotherhood affiliated, wife of Anthony Weiner, and top aide to Hillary Clinton, the magnanimous Huma Abedin. They have also met with Cheryl Mills who walked out of the questioning when the questions got tough.

Clinton and her campaign team of miscreants have described the investigation (as to whether Hillary Clinton should be charged under the Espionage Act, or whether she has used the Clinton Foundation to help fund her campaign, which is illegal, or if her aides were given access to her password and thereby her server) as a security inquiry.

On "Face the Nation" this Sunday, Hillary used the term 'security inquiry' when asked how she would respond to people worried the FBI probe is a "big deal."

"I say what I've said now for many, many months," the Mother of Mendacity said. "It's a security inquiry. I always took classified material seriously. There was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me, and I look forward to this being wrapped up."

But of course, the emails don't actually need to be marked "Classified" to be classified--that's only in the movies, and Hillary knows that, but, like another Democrat, Jonathan Gruber, she's counting on the stupidity of the American voter.

That's why we have the liberals on the far left--we want all the stupid American voters where we can see them.


Tweet

Hillary tries to block the first Jewish POTUS

If you were able to watch the Democratic "debate" on PBS on Thursday, you may have come to the conclusion that the Hillary fix is obviously in.

First of all, one of the moderators asked a question tied to the Vietnam war. According to Gawker, a live mic caught one of them sighing, "Oh God," as Sanders began his answer. The moderator may as well have done a "Candy Crowley" and helped the candidate of her choice with the debate. (You may recall how Crowley came to Obama's aid when Romney posed a tough question to him.)

Judy Woodruff, one of the moderators, has donated to the Clinton Foundation--that should have been either disqualified her as a moderator, or at the very least, made public at the outset of the debate as full disclosure.

But this was a Democratic debate, so who are we kidding?

Another interesting point that should dispel any doubts that the fix was in to support Clinton is the fact that on the very day of the debate, subpoenas were issued by the State Department to a family foundation bearing Hillary's name as part of the ongoing federal investigation. Nothing, not a word was asked about this to Clinton.

So it's okay to ask GOP candidates tough questions, like those asked of Trump and Cruz regarding bankruptcies of the former, and a loan from Goldman Sachs to the latter, but the media throws cotton balls at Clinton.

It isn't that the public isn't interested in what may turn out to be indictable chicanery by Clinton. Facebook and other social media pegged the meter over the news about the Clinton Foundation, and yet, nothing was asked about it in spite of the fact that subpoenas were issued by the State Department.

Even Bernie Sanders seems to be unwilling to effectively attack Hillary. When Woodruff asked him how he would feel if he blocked the election of the first woman president, his answer was as weak as his "enough about the damn emails." 

He should have said something like: "And why is it okay for Mrs. Clinton to block the election of the first Jew?"

But he didn't . . . and he won't.

The fix is in and journalism is dead.


Tweet