posted May 08, 2015 02:10 PM            

Why should I tell you?

Why don't you tell me about "credible polls" taken about the honesty and trustworthiness of the candidates you listed?

Hillary is sinking like a rock in a bog.

posted May 11, 2015 11:32 AM            

Bill Clinton was dubbed the "Liar in Chief" for his serial lying.

O'Bomber is said to never tell the truth.

Now, Hillary is running all over America lying through her teeth.

At least some people...not the usual suspects or Hillary Kool-Aid drinkers, but some members of the MSM are noticing.

Give the lying Hillary Four Pinocchios

Clinton’s claim that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than some corporations
Glenn Kessler
May 11

“In New York, which I know a little bit about because I represented it for eight years and I live there now, our undocumented workers in New York pay more in taxes than some of the biggest corporations in New York.”

–Hillary Clinton, roundtable in North Las Vegas, May 5, 2015

Several readers contacted The Fact Checker asking about this assertion by the former secretary of state, made as she discussed her policy goals for tackling illegal immigration. They wanted to know how this statement was possible.

Her statement is vague enough that one could interpret it as meaning that individual workers pay more in taxes than corporations, but Clinton’s campaign said that she was talking about undocumented workers as a group. Even so, is her claim possible?

The Facts

The Clinton campaign initially pointed to an opinion column by Albor Ruiz in the Daily News, dated April 20, 2015, titled, “Corporate giants often get huge tax breaks, while poor, undocumented immigrants have paid billions in state taxes.”

We often warn that opinion columns are not necessarily as good a source of information as articles based on straight news reporting. Ruiz, for instance, relied on facts on corporate taxes from the Web site of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which does not disclose sources for its assertions. Ruiz claimed that although “many of these corporate behemoths pay zero taxes, the eternally vilified undocumented immigrants in New York paid $1.1 billion in state taxes in 2012.”

The figure about taxes paid by undocumented workers comes from a report issued by the left-leaning Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. We have no major issues with the methodology used in that report, except to note that it is a very broad estimate, based on assumptions about the number of immigrants, the average size of immigrant families, the range of income of immigrant workers, the number of homeowners and effective tax rates. A change in any one of those assumptions would alter the result.

For New York, for example, the report estimated that in 2012 there were 873,000 illegal immigrants, with an average family income of $32,600. Eighteen percent were estimated to be homeowners. They supposedly paid $566 million in sales and excise taxes, $186 million in state and local income taxes, and $342 million in property taxes, for a total of more than $1 billion. (Note that more than 50 percent of the figure comes from sales taxes, which every person and company pays just anytime something is purchased.)

But the most important aspect of the report is that it looks at state, local and property taxes paid by immigrants — not federal taxes. The Sanders Web site is about federal taxes. So Ruiz — and Clinton by extension — are mixing apples and oranges.

Thus, for the purposes of this fact check, we are not going delve deeply into the question of whether some big corporations do not pay much – or even zero — in federal taxes. The issue is very complicated and not very well reported in the U.S. media. (See, for example, how Fortune documented flaws in a New York Times report on General Electric.)

A company’s annual 10-K filing in March generally will only have estimated numbers, as the actual tax return generally is not filed until later in the year. Total tax numbers can be determined from looking at cash flow statements, but one generally cannot figure out what taxes are being paid. Yet it is silly to assert that these companies pay no taxes at all, because at the very least they are paying property taxes, sales taxes and employment taxes.

The only New York-based companies mentioned in Ruiz’s column were Verizon and Citicorp, so let’s take a closer look at them. Verizon, for instance, announces how much it expects to pay in such taxes. In 2012, it says it paid $1.7 billion in property and other taxes and $1.3 billion in employment taxes. The income tax bill in 2012 was relatively low — $351 million — but it jumped to $4 billion in 2014. That brought Verizon’s total tax bill above $7 billion in 2014.

As for Citicorp, spokeswoman Molly Millerwise Meiners said the company in 2012 paid nearly $1 billion in U.S. taxes (not including sales and excise taxes), including $300 million in state and local taxes, at least $110 million in property and use taxes, and $500 million in employment taxes. Sales taxes would bring the number even higher. Citi, of course, had enormous losses during the financial crisis which wiped out its federal income tax bill in 2012, but in 2014, she said, federal income taxes alone were about $1 billion.

David Kallick, director of the Immigration Research Initiative at Fiscal Policy Institute, which co-released the ITEP report, said that Clinton was trying to make the point that undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than most people recognize. But he acknowledged that “if you really want to make a thorough comparison, you would have to include other taxes corporations may pay.”

Indeed, the accounting firm Ernst & Young estimates that that state and local business taxes totaled $643 billion in 2012. About one-third of the total stemmed from property taxes and one-fifth from sales taxes. There were also tens of billions paid in public utilities taxes, excise taxes, business license taxes, unemployment insurance taxes and other state business taxes.

Matt Gardner, executive director of ITEP and a co-author of the report, said it’s correct that many big companies pay no income taxes in certain years but it makes little sense to compare those numbers to a group of people. “If she means undocumented workers as a group, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison,” he said. “You could pick any large segment of the population and state, probably correctly, that that group pays more taxes than certain specific corporations. It’s just not obvious why that’s a very meaningful comparison to make.”

“The point she was making is that undocumented immigrants pay more in state and local taxes alone than some of our biggest companies pay in either state or federal corporate income tax,” said Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin. “That is a striking fact. And that’s why she raised it.”

The Pinocchio Test

Even if Clinton incorrectly stated her talking point, this is a tendentious argument that is probably made even less relevant by 2014 tax data. (Note how the taxes paid by Verizon and Citicorp increased as the economy began to pick up.) If she is only talking about state and local income taxes, that’s just $186 million, according to the ITEP estimate for New York. Verizon and Citicorp still exceed that number on state and local taxes alone.

Undocumented immigrants obviously pay a lot of taxes, especially sales taxes. Clinton would have an even stronger case to highlight the tax contribution of illegal immigrants if she mentioned that the Social Security actuary estimated that illegal immigrants paid $12 billion in Social Security taxes in 2010 alone, with little hope of ever receiving benefits. (They used false or duplicative Social Security numbers.) That’s even more than the ITEP estimate for state/local income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes paid by illegal immigrants across the nation.

But comparing the taxes of hundreds of thousands of people to the tax bill of one corporation is a stretch and fairly misleading. Even the companies that pay little or no federal income taxes end up paying lots of other taxes. So it’s a nonsense comparison.

We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but ultimately settled on Four. As a former senator, Clinton should know better.

posted May 16, 2015 09:14 AM            

Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals
JOSH GERSTEIN, TARINI PARTI, HADAS GOLD and DYLAN BYERS
5/15/15

NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation's records show.

The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry's ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for his previously undisclosed $75,000 contribution.

The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively.

Judy Woodruff, the co-anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour, gave $250 to the foundation's “Clinton Haiti Relief Fund" in 2010.

The following list includes news media organizations that have donated to the foundation, as well as other media networks, companies, foundations or individuals that have donated. It is organized by the size of the contribution:

$1,000,000-$5,000,000

Carlos Slim
Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder

James Murdoch
Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox

Newsmax Media
Florida-based conservative media network

Thomson Reuters
Owner of the Reuters news service

$500,00-$1,000,000

Google

News Corporation Foundation
Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company

$250,000-$500,000

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publisher

Richard Mellon Scaife
Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

$100,000-$250,000

Abigail Disney
Documentary filmmaker

Bloomberg Philanthropies

Howard Stringer
Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive

Intermountain West Communications Company
Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)

$50,000-$100,000

Bloomberg L.P.

Discovery Communications Inc.

George Stephanopoulos
ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent

Mort Zuckerman
Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report

Time Warner Inc.
Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting

$25,000-$50,000

AOL

HBO

Hollywood Foreign Press Association
Presenters of the Golden Globe Awards

Viacom

$10,000-$25,000

Knight Foundation
Non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism

Public Radio International

Turner Broadcasting
Parent company of CNN

Twitter

$5,000-$10,000

Comcast
Parent copmany of NBCUniversal

NBC Universal
Parent company of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC

Public Broadcasting Service

$1,000-$5,000

Robert Allbritton
Owner of POLITICO parent company Capitol News Group

$250-$1,000

AOL Huffington Post Media Group

Hearst Corporation

Judy Woodruff
PBS Newshour co-anchor and managing editor

posted May 17, 2015 08:48 AM            

If Congress really wants to get to the bottom of Hillary Clinton’s missing Benghazi and pay-to-play emails, it should call her consigliere Cheryl D. Mills to testify — under oath, and under the klieg lights.

A hearing featuring Clinton will be a wasted show trial with a lot of political grandstanding.

But Mills, who served as the former secretary of state’s chief of staff and counselor, knows where the bodies are buried. After all, Hillary tasked her with “identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records.”

And, presumably, deleting.

Mills has a long track record of hiding Clinton documents.

Since the 1990s, Mills has been at Hillary’s side — first as a White House lawyer, then as her closest and most loyal adviser at the State Department, and now as a key member of the Clinton Foundation board, which is under fire for raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from dubious foreign sources in alleged influence-peddling deals.

The job of damage control has fallen to Mills through a parade of scandals. Her lack of cooperation is legendary. In fact, she’s been officially accused of both perjury and obstruction of justice.

Sworn affidavits, depositions and court rulings, as well as congressional reports and testimony, paint a picture of, to put it charitably, a brazenly dishonest cover-up specialist.

Among her shenanigans:

•As White House deputy counsel, Mills ordered Commerce Department officials to “withhold” from investigators emails and other documents detailing then-President Clinton’s and First Lady Hillary Clinton’s allegedly illegal selling of seats on foreign trade junkets for campaign cash, according to sworn statements by Commerce’s former FOIA chief. “Ms. Mills, in her position as deputy counsel to the president, advised Commerce officials to withhold certain documents,” testified Sonya Stewart Gilliam in a July 2000 sworn affidavit taken by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group in Washington. “The Commerce Department’s collaboration with White House Deputy Counsel Mills on these matters was, in my experience, highly irregular and at variance with normal procedures.

•At the same time, a federal judge ruled that Mills “failed miserably” to take proper steps to search for and recover 1.8 million Executive Office of the President and Office of the First Lady emails under subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky and Filegate scandal investigations, after computer contractors discovered them mysteriously missing from the automated White House archiving system. Mills, who was in charge of finding the lost email, conveniently made “the most critical error” in recovering them, US District Judge Royce Lamberth concluded in a 63-page opinion, adding that he found her actions “loathsome.” In fact, Judicial Watch accused Mills of orchestrating a “cover-up” in what became known as “Email-gate.” Her court testimony in the case, during which she repeatedly answered “I don’t have a recollection,” sounds like an interview with an amnesia patient. (In the end, the emails were never recovered).

•In another scandal, Mills “concealed” so many subpoenaed emails and other documents detailing allegedly illegal fundraising activity between the White House and the Democratic National Committee — specifically, Hillary’s illegal integration of White House and DNC computer databases — that staff lawyers for the House Government Oversight Committee in 1998 sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department demanding federal prosecutors charge Mills with obstruction of justice and perjury. “Ms. Mills knowingly and willfully obstructed the investigative authority of this committee by withholding documents,” the panel concluded in a 647-page investigative report. “Moreover, when this obstruction was brought to light in a hearing before the committee, Ms. Mills lied under oath about the documents and the circumstances surrounding their nonproduction.”

•In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and decided which ones to withhold from an independent review board. She also leaned on witnessses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop cooperating with investigators.

•On behalf of the Clintons, Mills negotiated the weak conflict-of-interest rules for disclosing foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation with the Obama administration. She also reportedly helped broker international payments to the group.

In short, Mills “is in the middle of it,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

An investigator with the House Select Committee on Benghazi said if the panel calls Mills as a witness, her testimony will most likely be taken behind closed doors in a “transcribed interview.” That would be a mistake.

Mills should be sworn in and grilled in a public hearing in front of TV cameras.

Sweating Mills could crack the case wide open. Otherwise, Hillary could walk away unscathed, waltz right back into the White House — and Mills could end up running it as chief of staff.

posted May 20, 2015 10:24 AM            

Documents: Administration Knew of al-Qaida Ties to Benghazi Attacks
Tuesday, 19 May 2015
Jason Devaney

The Obama administration knew the 2012 Benghazi attacks were committed by al-Qaida linked terrorists the day after the siege on the American consulate, according to secret documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

The documents, according to Judicial Watch, contain communications sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the White House National Security Council on Sept. 12, 2012, the day following the attack that killed four Americans, including J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

The documents are heavily redacted, according to Judicial Watch, but indicate the U.S. government knew the attack was planned in advance by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR), which is linked to both al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR). BCOAR is also responsible for past attacks on the Red Cross in Benghazi and the attack on the British ambassador; they have approximately 120 members," one document reads.

"The BCOAR are connected to Ansar al-Sharia katiba, commanded by Sofian AL ((GUMMA)), they are based in Derna but have a branch in Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia share the same ideology as BCOAR, but it is not thought that they were involved in the attack on the U.S. American consulate on 11 September 2012.

"The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings."

The document goes on to explain where the attackers trained and talks about a room in a local mosque "that contains a large number of written documents. The majority of their communication is written as the group very rarely uses email, these documents contain information on all of the AQ [al-Qaida] activity in Libya."

Other documents obtained by Judicial Watch talked about the Obama administration knowing weapons were being smuggled from Benghazi to Syrian rebels. Another memo, written in 2012, claimed "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria."

It was recently discovered that Clinton used several private email addresses during her years as secretary of state (2009-2013), and lawmakers are attempting to track down some of her missing emails tied to Benghazi.

Clinton is scheduled to testify on Benghazi sometime this month on Capitol Hill.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

"These documents show that the Benghazi coverup has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.

posted May 28, 2015 11:03 AM            

Neither of these two lying clowns are fit to be president of the United States.

Declassified docs: Hillary aided rise of ISIS
Confirm reports of U.S. arming Middle East jihadists
16 hours ago

NEW YORK – More than 100 pages of previously classified Department of Defense and Department of State documents implicate the Obama administration in a cover-up to obscure the role Hillary Clinton and the State Department played in the rise of ISIS.

The documents were obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch.

They confirm WND reporting over the past three years of evidence that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was involved in shipping weapons from Benghazi to support the al-Qaida-affiliated militias fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, effectively arming the Sunni jihadists who morphed into ISIS.

The documents further confirm WND reporting that the goal of the terrorists behind the Benghazi attack that killed Stevens was to force the release of Omar Abdul Rahman, the “blind sheik” in U.S. prison serving a life sentence for his involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and to avenge death of a prominent Libyan al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan.

“These documents are jaw-dropping,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them.”

Fitton referenced in particular a Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, dated Sept. 12, 2012. It documents that the attack on the Benghazi compound had been carefully planned by the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman, BOCAR, which aimed “to kill as many Americans as possible.”

The document, dated the day after the Benghazi attack, was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.

The free WND special report “ISIS Rising,” by Middle East expert and former Department of Defense analyst Michael Maloof, will answer your questions about the jihadist army threatening the West.

“If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president,” Fitton observed.

“These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” Fitton stated.

He said the documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits.”

“The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,” Fitton said.

Plan to release the blind sheik

The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” provides additional evidence for a WND article Jan. 27 reporting that James “Ace” Lyons – a former four-star admiral who served as the commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and a founding member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi – proposed that the attack was an Obama administration-orchestrated kidnapping attempt that went “terribly wrong.”

Lyons speculated that the Obama administration wanted to give the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels operating in conjunction with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood an opportunity to kidnap Stevens and exchange him for the blind Sheik. The purpose of the plan, Lyons says, may have been to furnish the Obama administration with a pretext to justify to the American public the release of the blind sheik to then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, complying with a request Morsi made in his 2012 acceptance speech on becoming president of Egypt.

The Department of Defense documents released by Judicial Watch further reveals that a-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri sent BCOAR leader Abdul Baset, AZUZ, into Libya to seek revenge “for the U.S. killing of Aboyahiye (ALALIBY) in Pakistan.”

The documents provide additional evidence for a 2013 WND story reporting the Benghazi attack was in response to Zawahiri’s request to avenge the U.S. drone killing of Libyan al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area June 4, 2012.

CIA ‘not well organized’ narrative disputed

The newly released DOD and State Department documents also differ from the account of the Benghazi attack Michael Morell, the recently retired CIA deputy director, gives in his current book, “The Great War of Our Time.” On Page 206, he argues that viewing a CIA video of the Benghazi attack made in “real time” caused him to conclude that “with little or no advance planning, extremists in Benghazi made some phone calls, gathered a group of like-minded individuals to go to the TMF.”

In Morell’s narrative, the 9/11 Benghazi attack “was not well organized” but “seemed to be more of a mob that had come to the TMF with the intent of breaching the compound and seeing what damage they could do.”

“When you assess the information from the video, there are few signs of a well-thought-out plan, few signs of command and control, few signs of organization, few signs of even the most basic military tactics in the attack on the TMF,” Morrell said.

“Some of the attackers were armed with small arms; many were not armed at all. No heavy weapons were seen on the videotape,” Morell continued. “Many of the attackers, after entering through the front gate, ran past buildings to the other end of the compound, behaving as if they were thrilled just to have overrun the compound. They did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting vandalism.”

Morell stressed that the Obama administration, despite his objections to the contrary, has refused to make available for public viewing the yet classified CIA “real time” video of the Benghazi attack.

Weapons shipped to Syria

Judicial Watch also noted the DOD documents released this week contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.

An October 2012 DOD report confirmed:

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the (Qaddafi) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

A DIA document further detailed:

The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]

The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.

Another Defense Intelligence Agency report, written in August 2012, the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria, said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al-Qaida and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”...(You remember the Muslim Brotherhood don't you? Those are the America hating pals of Hillary and O'Bomber whom they put in power in Egypt...until the people of Egypt kicked their sorry as$es out!)

Judicial Watch noted the sectarian direction of the war in Syria was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS.

The DIA document noted the following:

This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

Judicial Watch commented that some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”

On Feb. 26, Judicial Watch has reported on State Department documents obtained by the Washington-based watchdog organization in a separate FOIA lawsuit that revealed aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/declassified-docs-hillary-aided-rise-of-isis/

posted May 30, 2015 10:03 AM            

A federal judge in Florida has scheduled a trial for January for a case charging Bill and Hillary Clinton with RICO violations.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case was filed by Larry Klayman, of Freedom Watch, who alleges over the last decade, the Clintons have participated in “acts” that constitute a “criminal enterprise” that was designed to enrich them.

WND reported earlier this year when the case was filed that it alleged actions by Hillary and Bill Clinton, in coordination with their family foundation, constituted RICO crimes.

Klayman for years has been a Washington watchdog, having engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. He’s also taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States, and just over the last year or so has won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program as well as bringing a case against Barack Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

According to Klayman, the Clintons, through mail and wire fraud and false statements, misappropriated documents which he was entitled to receive and possess under the Freedom of Information Act regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in releasing Israeli war and cyber-warfare plans and practices.

Hillary Clinton orchestrated this release to harm and thwart Israeli plans to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear sites to stop the Islamic nation’s march to producing atomic weapons, according to Klayman.

The claim also explains Klayman used the nation’s FOIA to try to get details from the State Department regarding waivers to do business with Iran – “acts [that are] alleged to be the result of the defendants selling government influence in exchange for bribes from interests which have donated to The Clinton Foundation, paid huge speaking fees to the Clintons and other means.”

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

Klayman told WND that it’s time for the Clintons “finally [to] be held legally accountable.”

He alleges their “criminal enterprise” dates back at least 10 years.

It was when the Clintons left the White House in 2000 that, Hillary Clinton has claimed, they were broke.

Estimates are that since that time period, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with details being revealed about how foreign interests made donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

“Defendants have systematically and continuously, over the last ten (10) years and more, conducted a corrupt enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,” the filing claims, “all of which acts are continuing in nature.”

“Plaintiff sues the defendants, as individuals operating a criminal enterprise, for violating plaintiff’s statutory rights to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act … for violating plaintiff’s due process rights, vested property rights, constitutional rights, and for misappropriating property,” the filing says.

The complaint explains, “Plaintiff has filed many Freedom of Information Act requests for public records created or held by the U.S. Department of State … which records are of the public interest and importance to the citizens of the United States. … As it has now been revealed, a primary reason that the plaintiff did not receive the records to which the plaintiff is entitled by law is that Defendant Hillary Clinton – upon information and belief together with Cheryl Mills and Defendant Bill Clinton and other Clinton ‘loyalists’ – set up a private computer file server operating a private, stand-alone electronic mail system.”

It alleges Clinton’s “off the books” plan “concealed from the plaintiff public records to which the plaintiff was entitled to under the FOIA Act.”

It continues, “Using those concealed communications held on the private email server, upon information and belief, the defendants negotiated, arranged and implemented the sale of influence and access to U.S. government officials and decision-makers and official acts by State and other instrumentalities of the U.S. government in return for gratuitous and illegal payments – bribes – disguised as donations to defendant The Clinton Foundation and extraordinarily high speaking fees paid to Defendant Bill Clinton and Defendant Hillary Clinton.”

The case filing estimates the Clintons have “amassed a personal fortune (outside of The Clinton Foundation) of over $105 million.”

Klayman had only just filed court papers requesting the judge take control of Hillary Clinton’s email server, because there could be “material evidence that is in imminent danger of being lost.”

posted May 31, 2015 08:21 AM            

Naked ambition is no stranger to politics, and plenty of unworthy men have ascended to the highest rung with little to offer but that, witness our current president. Hillary Clinton likewise seeks the presidency with little in the way of accomplishment or talent to recommend her, but sustained nonetheless by her own relentless will to power. In the case of Obama, his own will was fortified by good looks, and a glamorous political charisma (succinctly, crudely and famously summarized by Joe Biden.) As the first “viable” African-American presidential candidate he was practically anointed by the Democrat party, and Obama’s presidency has taken on the airs of a monarchy ruled by one of divine right. Hillary’s path to the presidency, if it exists, is quite different. It will be won, if at all, based in large part on her complete absence of charisma, good looks, and glamour.

Obviously, were it not for her husband’s success, it is highly unlikely that Hillary ever would have come to national attention. Ambition alone, without other critical assets, usually doesn’t go far, and Hillary has never shown any outstanding ability or talent, except when it comes to advancing her own political fortunes. This she’s cleverly done by attaching herself to Bill, and not letting go, despite his chronic and unapologetic (at least in terms of sincerity) adultery. Indeed, she’s made herself indispensable to him, by both enabling his cheating, and defending him as the loyal spouse -- which lets Bill have his personal cake and eat his political one.

Whatever Hillary does in any of her public endeavors is nothing but an afterthought to her personal political calculations. This helps explain why such a well-educated, intelligent, and hard-working woman could accomplish so little professionally in any of her various careers. She did nothing of note as a lawyer or a U.S. senator. The one significant job given to her as First Lady (designing national health care policy) was a complete disaster. Likewise, as becomes more evident every day, so was her tenure as secretary of state. What her few released emails show are most remarkable for their absence of any appreciable interest or insight about her job. Intent merely on punching her ticket, rather than actually analyzing or implementing policy, she made a show of flying around the world more than any of her predecessors, and also accomplishing less. This left Barack Obama to implement his own catastrophic policies. On those occasions when she claims she did offer advice he mostly ignored her. When he did follow her guidance, as in Libya, she was usually wrong.

On top of this is the obvious fact that almost everything Hillary does is tainted by calculation, dishonestly, immorality, and scandal, a history that dates back decades, and would likely have already undermined almost any other presidential candidate. Still, fully half the nation appears to back her. There are of course many things that still keep her afloat: party loyalty, name recognition, fame, gender, Bill’s status, his political connections and political capital, plus massive personal wealth and fundraising prowess.

Other reasons have been proposed as well, recently the so-called grandmother factor. As presented in a recent Atlantic article, Hillary and other aging female politicians may benefit from an evolutionary imperative that gives post-menopausal wisdom both wisdom and societal gravitas. But while this theory may well have merit in some cases, it is doubtful that it applies to Hillary. To be sure, Hillary and her minions have already sought to play on this factor. Other mature female politicians have convincingly played the grandmotherly role while maintaining their authority (Golda Meir comes to mind, perhaps Angela Merkel) but this is a mask that doesn’t fit Hillary well. It is a meme that may play well for liberal suburban women. Yet that’s a group Hillary’s largely bagged, and if anything has been ahead of her liberal issues like support for gay marriage -- not really a grandmotherly thing.

So why do a large segment of the American people (who are not liberal female suburbanites or diehard leftists) continue to excuse Hillary for her obvious serial corruption, dishonesty, and unethical behavior? It’s largely for the opposite reasons they excused Bill (and continue to do so) for the same things. Bill Clinton dances around his corruption, dishonesty and infidelity because of his good looks, charm and natural charisma. He plays the role of loveable rogue and people eat it up. He gets away with it in part because he is a man.

Hillary has none of Bill’s good looks or political gifts, other than being an effective schemer. But if she did, it’s unlikely that the public would cut her a pass like they continue to do. If Hillary were also good looking and glamorous her corruption and unethical behavior would be a lot harder for people (especially women) to take. She’d become a political version of a soap opera villainess, who reinforces her amoral scheming with lots of charm and sex appeal. Hillary’s got plenty of the former and none of the latter. Is this a form of sexism? You bet.

In sum, for an inattentive electorate with the attention span of a beagle, Hillary just doesn’t fit the stereotype of the Hollywood villainess, and for too many people, Hollywood is reality. Everything about her screams plain-Jane awkwardness, including her screeching, unartful defenses of herself, as at the Benghazi hearings. It’s not that she is grandmotherly, rather that she’s kind of pathetic, yet doesn’t know it, and nobody has the heart to tell her. Not Republican congressmen, nor millions of ordinary American men and women who have become almost inured to her shenanigans. That she’s also the victim of endless and embarrassing cuckoldry adds to her pathetic appeal. She’s the boor at the party that nobody has the courage to confront, and so who dominates the proceedings based on her own self-absorption and lack of self-awareness.

posted May 31, 2015 07:29 PM            

CNN • Clinton Foundation Scandals Affecting Hillary’s Prospects
May 31 2015
iizthatiiz

CNN anchor John King expresses concerns that the constant flow of scandals emanating from the Clinton Foundation are creating a ‘trap door’ for Hillary Clinton’s electoral prospects.

posted June 04, 2015 07:05 AM            

The Clinton Foundation followed Rahm Emanuel’s adage of never letting a crisis go to waste when Swedish companies faced potential blacklisting over sanctions on doing business with Iran. John Solomon ands Julie Riddell of the Washington Times report:

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.

This looks exactly like a shakedown racket. And it was not the foundation alone that profited enormously:

Mr. Clinton personally pocketed a record $750,000 speech fee from Ericsson, one of the firms at the center of the sanctions debate.

And the timing is very suspicious:

[Ericsson paid] the former president a record $750,000 for a speech in Hong Kong in November 2011, just weeks after Mrs. Clinton released the first sanctions list that excluded Ericsson and other Swedish firms.

Other remarkable coincidences in timing:

After the U.S. announced its sanctions list in 2011 and 2012 — which included no Swedish companies — the Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse saw an uptick in its fundraising, from about $3 million in 2011 to $9 million in 2012 to $14 million in 2013, according to data released by the Swedish Svensk Insamlings Kontroll.

The foundation is not exactly throwing open its records on the matter:

The foundation, however, declined repeated requests to identify the names of the specific donors that passed through the Swedish arm.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign offered no comment or explanation despite two weeks of requests.

At issue was an expansion of sanctions, as Swedish companies, most particularly Volvo and Ericsson, were expanding their exports.

The U.S. is allowed to penalize foreign firms — even if they are incorporated in countries that are U.S. allies -- under the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). Beginning in 2010, the Obama administration stepped up U.S. efforts to use ISA authorities to discourage investment in Iran and to impose sanctions on companies that insisted on continuing their business with Iran, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

The State Department is required to report to Congress on ISA matters, which should be done every six months. The State report typically covers U.S. diplomatic concerns over which companies and countries may be interfering with U.S. policy by continuing their investments in Iran — much like the concerns that were coming out of Stockholm.

However, the State Department was slow in delivering its reports to Congress and placing them in the Federal Register as required by Section 5e of the ISA, which drew the concern of lawmakers that State wasn’t moving fast enough on making its sanction recommendations prior to the 2011-2012 formal announcements.

In February 2010, Mrs. Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the State Department’s ISA preliminary review was completed in early February and that some of the cases reviewed “deserve more consideration” and were undergoing additional scrutiny. The preliminary review, according to the testimony, was conducted, in part, through State Department officials’ contacts with their counterpart officials abroad and corporation officials.

That preliminary review hasn’t been made public, and the first like-report was posted to the Federal Registrar in 2012 with no company names specifically mentioned.

In other words, the problem just went away with no public footprints. Oh, and $26 million went to the foundation and three quarters of a million bucks went into Bill Clinton’s pocket.

There are lines of defense being offered. Most of the funds raised on Sweden come from two lotteries that are officially private corporations, but are highly regulated by the Swedish government. In a small country like Sweden with a tight establishment, the idea that these state-sanctioned entities had no understanding of what the national interest was in exports growing is laughable. Sweden must export to sustain its large and sophisticated corporations, and Iran was a promising market, especially because other nations were kept out of the market.

A second line of defense is the familiar “wonderful work the Clinton Foundation does” mantra, meaning purported work in Haiti (though nobody seems to think Haiti is exactly a model of effective philanthropy, what with people still living in tents years after the earthquake) and Africa, and not meaning putting Sidney Blumenthal on the payroll to operate a rogue intell service while promoting his own business.

posted June 05, 2015 01:37 PM            

A Washington watchdog suing Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is urging a federal court in Florida that already has scheduled a trial to immediately take physical custody of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

In a supplement to his recent motion to the court to have the unit seized, attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch notes that there is new relevant information to bolster his case.

Klayman submitted copies of a Washington Times report that the Clintons’ foundation “set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.”

Further, another article submitted by Klayman, from the Miami Herald, reported banks were paying huge fees to Bill Clinton for speeches at a delicate time.

“Many of the speeches and donations were made at times when the host banks were under Justice Department scrutiny. … All told, the same 11 banks have paid more than $81 billion – yes, that’s with a B – over the last six years to resolve federal investigations into alleged corruption,” the report said.

You don’t have to wonder about Hillary Clinton any longer, read her words for yourself, in “Hillary Unhinged.”

The case charges the Clintons schemed “to reap hundreds of millions of dollars personally and for their foundation by selling government access and influence.”

The server needs to the obtained, Klayman said, because Hillary Clinton used it in place of a required government system for all her emails as secretary of state, and it likely would contain documents pertinent to the allegations, Klayman said.

Hillary Clinton has said the drive was wiped, but he noted there are processes to recover documents.

“The gravamen of the RICO enterprise consists largely of the two major predicate acts as pled in plaintiff’s amended complaint including defendant Hillary Clinton selling waivers to companies doing business in Iran while secretary of state in exchange for donations for The Clinton Foundation and large speaking fees to her husband and later herself,” the motion continues.

“It is these documents concerning the criminal enterprise which are likely to remain on Hillary Clinton’s personal servers,” Klayman wrote. “In addition, documents concerning another major predicate act involve Hillary Clinton’s release of classified information concerning Israeli war plans.”

He explained the details were released and were “designed to thwart an Israeli preemptive strike to damage or destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capability by revealing Israeli strategic plans to forward base military operations.”

“This is why the court must take custody of the defendants’ email hard drives to preserve this material evidence,” Klayman wrote.

“Defendants, in particular Hillary Clinton, destroyed emails which plaintiff had requested under the Freedom of Information Act, concerning her sale of waivers as secretary of state to do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran and her participation principally in the criminal release of classified government information involving American and Israeli cyber-warfare to destroy or severely cripple Iranian atomic centrifuges and also the release to New York Times reporter David Sanger of classified Israeli war plans to wage a preemptive air attack to eliminate Iranian nuclear facilities,” he said.

WND previously reported a federal judge in Florida scheduled a trial for January for the case charging the Clintons with RICO violations.

Klayman, for years a Washington watchdog, engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. Klayman also has taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States. Recently, he won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program and brought a case against Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order setting the case for trial comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

Klayman told WND that it’s time for the Clintons “finally [to] be held legally accountable.”

He alleges their “criminal enterprise” dates back at least 10 years.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, they were “broke,” Hillary Clinton has claimed.

Estimates are that since that time, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking. Speaking fees for Bill Clinton have been as high as $750,000.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with foreign governments making donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

“Plaintiff sues the defendants, as individuals operating a criminal enterprise, for violating plaintiff’s statutory rights to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act … for violating plaintiff’s due process rights, vested property rights, constitutional rights, and for misappropriating property,” the filing says.

The complaint explains: “Plaintiff has filed many Freedom of Information Act requests for public records created or held by the U.S. Department of State … which records are of the public interest and importance to the citizens of the United States. … As it has now been revealed, a primary reason that the plaintiff did not receive the records to which the plaintiff is entitled by law is that Defendant Hillary Clinton – upon information and belief together with Cheryl Mills and Defendant Bill Clinton and other Clinton ‘loyalists’ – set up a private computer file server operating a private, stand-alone electronic mail system.”

It alleges Clinton’s “off the books” plan “concealed from the plaintiff public records to which the plaintiff was entitled to under the FOIA Act.”

posted June 05, 2015 03:53 PM            

First page number on the percentage of Christians in this nation is predictably wrong. Always go to the source (Pew):

Seems fairly inconsequential when you consider that Jesus himself would be a liberal over a Conservative any day.

posted June 05, 2015 04:33 PM            

Which is neither here nor there on the issue of whether Hillary to too politically, institutionally, intellectually and financially corrupt for anyone but her Kool-Aid drinking moon-bats to vote for her.

I wouldn't be quoting Pew if I were you. You know how much you fought against their poll which showed only 21% of Pew Poll respondents believed ALL OR EVEN MOST of what the NY Times prints as news.

And/or

posted June 05, 2015 05:29 PM            

Meanwhile Pew always backs me up whether it's on the believability of the NYT, global warming, or any other issue under the sun. They're COMPLETELY friendly to my more scientific method of gathering information...as the above illustrates perfectly.

posted June 06, 2015 02:24 PM            

That was YOU. So incensed were you over the Pew Poll breakdown, you raged against the poll.

All that when you couldn't even come up with a working definition of the word MOST Pew used in their poll.

In their poll, your flagship news source, the NY Times could only garner 21% of respondents who said they believe ALL OR EVEN MOST of what the NY Times prints as news. And hey, that was the best category for the NY Times. It went straight downhill for the NY Times in the other 3 categories of respondents...all the way down to LITTLE OR NOTHING!

posted June 08, 2015 07:36 PM            

I notice the way you skirt the fact that Pew does consistently back MY view, and not yours.

posted June 08, 2015 10:54 PM            

For some strange and inexplicable reason, you thought Pew was under some obligation to delineate their poll according to your preconceived...but erroneous standard.

To this day, you still don't know what the word MOST means. If you did then you would know why Pew broke out the categories of trust in various newspapers the way they did.

posted June 09, 2015 01:13 PM            

quote:

---

For some strange and inexplicable reason, you thought Pew was under some obligation to delineate their poll according to your preconceived...but erroneous standard.

---

No. Pew asked people to rate credibility on a scale, and you plainly couldn't understand and rejected that, because it betrayed the narrative you were trying to put forth. Follow-on polls further illustrated and backed my position.

You could no more "prove" your belief that you won that debate today than you ever could. I remember one thread I hounded you daily about how a question asking people to rate something on a scale works. You never answered, because you were lost.

You even tried this line with me to get me to stop pestering you over your erroneous interpretation:

"Now acoustic stuff your passive/aggressive nonsense straight up your butt and drop this subject with me."

posted June 09, 2015 01:44 PM            

I think you're finally...after years of being blanked out...getting the fact Pew was asking respondents to rank Newspapers on their believability/credibility.

Only 21% of respondents believed ALL or even MOST of what the NY Times prints as news.

posted June 10, 2015 09:47 AM            

And while you're at it, you can post the copy of the letter you said you were sending to the Pew Poll...and their response...to prove you were right!