Last fall, we spent a fair amount of time reading through John Podesta’s emails, courtesy of Wikileaks, and grew increasingly astonished with each passing day at the number of apparent conflicts of interest created by the Clinton Foundation which seemed to be nothing more than a front created for the Clintons to peddle their influence around the world in return for staggering “charitable” donations. Take, for example, our posts which questioned whether the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, made very sizable contributions to the Clinton Foundation just so he could get an audience with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss his failed $9 billion joint venture with Kuwait. Here are a couple of posts which provide some background: New Hillary Emails Expose Bill Pushing Meetings With Foundation Donors, Requests For “Diplomatic Passports” Did Foundation Donor Dow Chemical Seek Hillary “Favor” To Settle $9 Billion Lawsuit With Kuwait? Or, there was that time that Hillary was offered $12 million from Moroccan King Mohammed VI just to host her annual “Clinton Global Initiative” meeting in his country. And don’t even get us started on Doug Band who spent years with the Clintons before starting his own “consulting” practice called Teneo (see: Doug Band Exposes Foundation’s “For-Profit Activity Of President Clinton (i.e., Bill Clinton, Inc.)“) Now, an exclusive report on the “McCain Institute” published earlier today from the Daily Caller (DC) has us wondering who else in Congress might just be running miniature Clinton Foundation-ish organizations and enriching their personal families in the process.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jun 20, 2017.
Macron’s funding reveals that elite Socialists were really behind him changing the label to sell a centrist agenda, but in reality, to maintain their agenda. Macron was able to raise funds from French abroad with the promises of change, and this targeted particularly the French who fled Hollande living in London and New York. He did a photo-op with Nobel Prize laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz before journalists who is critical of the management of globalization, against laissez-faire economists who he classifies a ‘free market fundamentalists’, as well as international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Stiglitz is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University and is a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank. He was also a former member and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton and supported Hillary over Obama saying she is more ‘liberal’ (socialist) than Obama. Stiglitz believes in Georgism, which is a variety of Marxism whereby the State should own all the resources derived from land, which is an old Physicocrat(French) idea that wealth is derived from land. In this way, all natural resources should belong to government from mining to energy just for starters as if government operated industries ever ran efficient or were free from corruption. He also supported a single tax for all and believes that, while people should own the value what they produce themselves with everything derived from land should belong to government characterized as belonging equally to all members of society (government).
There are a few important things to know about Gary Cohn. Until Donald Trump tapped him to be the Director of the National Economic Council, he had worked at Goldman Sachs for a quarter century, rising to the position of President of the firm and second only to its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. Cohn walked out of Goldman in December with approximately $285 million, comprised mainly of Goldman stock, some of which had been granted early vesting. Since his exit from Goldman, Cohn has wasted no time in selling large chunks of his Goldman shares according to his financial disclosures. While this serves to reduce his conflicts of interest with Goldman, it also provides a face-saving means of exiting a massive position in a Wall Street bank without the appearance of panic or disloyalty. Against this backdrop comes the widely reported news that on April 5 Cohn met with Senators serving on the Senate Banking Committee and expressed support for bringing back a modern-day version of the depression era Glass-Steagall Act – legislation which was passed as a result of the Wall Street collapse of 1929 to 1933, which erased 90 percent of the market’s value. (Yes, 90 percent.) That legislation created Federally-insured deposits and barred insured commercial banks from being affiliated with Wall Street investment banks. It protected the U. S. financial system for 66 years until its repeal in 1999 under the Bill Clinton administration. It took only nine years after its repeal for Wall Street to implode in the same epic fashion as the ’29 crash.
On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) officially came into effect, virtually eliminating all tariffs and trade restrictions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. As Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins reminds readers: Bill Clinton, who lobbied extensively to get the deal done, said it would encourage other nations to work towards a broader world-trade pact. ‘NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs,’ said Clinton, as he signed the document, ‘If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.’ Ross Perot had a contrary perspective. Lobbying heavily against the agreement, he noted that if it was ratified, Americans would hear a giant ‘sucking sound’ as jobs went south of the border to Mexico. IT’S A COMPLICATED WORLD Fast forward 20 years, and NAFTA is a hot-button issue again. Donald Trump has said he is working on ‘renegotiating’ the agreement, and many Americans are sympathetic to this course of action.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Mar 29, 2017.
On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) officially came into effect, virtually eliminating all tariffs and trade restrictions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bill Clinton, who lobbied extensively to get the deal done, said it would encourage other nations to work towards a broader world-trade pact. ‘NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs,’ said Clinton, as he signed the document, ‘If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.’ Ross Perot had a contrary perspective. Lobbying heavily against the agreement, he noted that if it was ratified, Americans would hear a giant ‘sucking sound’ as jobs went south of the border to Mexico. It’s a Complicated World Fast forward 20 years, and NAFTA is a hot-button issue again. Donald Trump has said he is working on ‘renegotiating’ the agreement, and many Americans are sympathetic to this course of action. However, coming to a decisive viewpoint on NAFTA’s success or failure can be difficult to achieve. Over two decades, the economic and political landscape has changed. China has risen and created a surplus of cheap labor, technology has changed massively, and central banks have kept the spigots on with QE and ultra-low interest rates. Deciphering what results have been the direct cause of NAFTA – and what is simply the result of a fast-changing world – is not quite straightforward.
If you want to be an American TV talking head or a Western presstitute, you are required to be braindead and integrity-challenged like Bill O’Reilly, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and all the rest. In an interview with President Donald Trump, O’Reilly said: ‘Putin is a killer.’ O’Reilly is indifferent to the fact that thermo-nuclear war is a killer of planet Earth. For O’Reilly, President Trump’s desire to normalize relations with Russia is an indication that the President of the US is comfortable making deals with killers, as if America’s last three presidents have not been mass killers comfortable with their destruction in whole or part of many countries and millions of peoples. President Trump’s response to O’Reilly’s was: ‘We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think – our country’s so innocent?’ The only thing wrong with President Trump’s response is that it implicitly accepts that Putin is no different from Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Yet there is no evidence that Putin is a ‘killer.’ This accusation is an assertion from those who prosper from having a ‘Russian threat’ to keep the money and power flowing to themselves.
Sorry, pal, you’re evil. Self-righteous indignation counts for nothing in the strict accounting of real progressivism. Dear Self-Proclaimed “Progressive”: I love you, man, but it has become necessary to intervene in your self-destruction. Your ideological blinders and apologies for the Establishment’s Neocon-Neoliberal Empire are not just destroying your credibility, they’re destroying the nation and everywhere the Empire intervenes. While you squandered your political capital defending zero-cost causes like “safe spaces on college campuses,” the Empire was busy killing, maiming and making refugees of women and children in Syria. President Obama and his Neocon crew (former Secretary Hillary Clinton included) aren’t fools; they rely on drones and proxy armies to do their dirty work. Neoliberalism is the Establishment’s core ideology, and by supporting Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, you furthered, defended and rationalized the Empire’s neoliberal expansion and exploitation. Neoliberalism’s Big Lie is transforming everything into a market makes everyone richer. The dirty little secret of Neoliberalism is that the markets it creates are rigged in favor of Elitist cronies. If you can set aside your “progressive” blinders for a moment (Bill and Barack could do no wrong for 16 long years of neoliberal exploitation), you might learn that the Presidents and party you supported ushered in the era of neoliberal pillage as public-private partnerships, Philanthro-Capitalism, and rigged markets that enriched the elitist Establishment you defend at the expense of the bottom 95% non-elites.
Rapacity performed by an outgoing Democratic president is intentionally downplayed or simply ignored by the mainstream media. We saw such unbridled rapacity in the atavistic way the Clintons left the White House when they departed in 2000. They stole and/or vandalized furniture and furnishings of the White House and left it in a deplorable state. From a perspective of his official actions, Bill Clinton did things such as pardon Tommy Rich and closed a few loopholes to ensure his Clinton Foundation deals did not fall apart after he surrendered the Oval Office. The Obamas are not following suit in the manner of the Clintons with pillaging the White House for three reasons. Firstly, although he committed dozens of offenses that would have merited it, Obama was not impeached, whereas Clinton was. For those who may hold askance with the conditions of impeachment for Obama, let us remember that under the parameters of the National Defense Authorization Act and the tenets of more than half a dozen overlapping executive orders, the United States (and the world) were ‘redefined’ as a ‘battlefield’ in the war on terror. The emergency status has never been lifted: that status was affirmed and inculcated under the Bush administration shortly after 9/11 that categorized us as being in a state of war (against terrorism) and a continuous state of emergency. Under such ‘wartime’ conditions, the words of Obama in 2012 were clearly treasonous and constituted an impeachable offense.
This post was published at shtfplan on December 30th, 2016.
The three most hated modern American politicians were LBJ, Nixon, and Hillary. They were driven out of power by their enemies. Nixon was long called Tricky Dick by Democrats. The Democrats hated him as they hated no other nationally famous Republican. Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn at the Democratic National Convention in 1960 persuaded LBJ to take the Vice Presidency slot under Kennedy, whom LBJ despised almost as much as he despised his brother Bobby, in order to defeat Nixon. He ate a big mud sandwich in the name of Party unity against Nixon. Johnson quit in March 1968 before he was driven out of power by the Republicans in November. The anti-war Democrats had deserted him in the primaries. Nixon was driven out of power in 1974 by a small contingent of Republicans in Congress, who went to him and said he would be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Hillary was defeated in full public view by the first man with zero political or government-employment experience to win the Presidency. All three went into forced retirement. THE HATED NIXON. The conservatives trusted Nixon in 1948 when Nixon trusted Whittaker Chambers. Nixon was a first-term Congressman from California. In 1948, he was the member of a House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. (Note: there was never a House UnAmerican Activities Committee. “HUAC” was a phenomenally successful acronym imposed by the Left onto a Committee that should have had “HCUA” as its acronym.) HCUA was investigating Communists in government. President Truman had issued an executive order in 1947 to require a loyalty oath for federal employees. This order was an extension of Truman’s growing surveillance state. His executive order and Eisenhower’s 1953 extension of it were repealed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Chambers, an editor at Time (and the translator of Bambi), testified to the committee that the Roosevelt Administration’s Alger Hiss was a Communist. Hiss had been an advisor at the Yalta Conference of February 1945. Then Chambers escalated his accusation in 1949: Hiss had been an informant to the USSR — in short, a spy. Chambers was ridiculed by the Establishment. Yet it was all true. Hiss went to prison for perjury in 1950; the statute of limitations against espionage had run out.
This post was published at Gary North on December 30, 2016.
The Wikileaks emails continue to be a treasure trove of Clinton Foundation corruption, and that includes daughter Chelsea. In this latest revelation dated January 4, 2012, former top Bill Clinton aide and Clinton Foundation board member Doug Band warns Podesta, ‘Once we go down this road’ in regard to Chelsea looking a little too deeply into the goings on at the foundation, after admitting a few bombshells about where the money really goes. Apparently the 501c3 was used not only to pay for Chelsea’s lavish $3 million wedding, but also for her ‘life for a decade,’ and that’s in addition to Chelsea skirting taxes on money from Bill and Hillary:
Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org, Whether the information originated from hacked e-mails and computer files or Freedom of Information Act requests, the revelations about the political and business activities of Hillary and Bill Clinton and their cronies hearken back to another era, the Great Depression of the 1930s and the crime spree of another unscrupulous couple: bank robbery desperados Bonnie and Clyde. Aside from Hillary Clinton running her own lucrative off-the-books foreign policy via her private email servers and e-mail chain of associates and flunkies, it was her and her husband’s joint Clinton Foundation and Teneo Capital operations that scream out the word corruption. The servers were merely a mechanism by which the Clintons ran their own pay-to-play racketeering operation, something that would have been the envy of a contemporary of Bonnie and Clyde, Chicago crime boss Al Capone. Teneo, which runs a hedge fund operation and a private intelligence service jam-packed with former Central Intelligence Agency operatives, is where Mrs. Clinton’s gal pal and aide Huma Abedin worked simultaneously to her government employment with the State Department. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe of 650,000 emails found on the laptop computer of disgraced former New York Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Abedin, is but the proverbial tip of the iceberg. While FBI agents pore through Abedin’s emails that were discovered on the laptop and looking Mrs. Clinton’s emails that were either not destroyed by her aides or which were never accounted for, the real story is the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Teneo.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 4, 2016.
In a 2011 memo, an aide to Bill Clinton laid out the unethical relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Bill’s sudden wealth. Bill’s personal interests were linked as was Hillary selling influence. The memo details how some foundation donors paid Clinton to speak and provide consulting services.
Yesterday, former SEC Chair Arthur Levitt penned an OpEd for the Wall Street Journal, effectively telling Senator Elizabeth Warren to stop criticizing Mary Jo White in public. White is the current Chair of the SEC that Senator Warren publicly asked President Obama to fire this month for her bad leadership. Senator Warren is a genuine champion of the investing public and understands how the SEC has become a lapdog to Wall Street under White’s inept leadership. Levitt is part of the Bill Clinton machine that de-regulated Wall Street and turned it into a massive looting racket in the 1990s through today. It’s important to take note of Levitt’s effort to muzzle Warren in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Expect to see more of this coming from a lot more of Wall Street’s cronies. Arthur Levitt was appointed as SEC Chair by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Levitt served until 2001, making him the longest serving SEC Chair. Levitt had previously been Sandy Weill’s business partner in a Wall Street brokerage firm. In 1998, when Weill wanted to create Citigroup by merging his Travelers Group, which owned an insurance company, brokerage firm and investment bank, with Citibank, an insured depository bank – an illegal merger at the time under the Glass-Steagall Act – Levitt and his other cronies in the Bill Clinton administration eagerly got the ball rolling.
Trump grabbed it, Hillary ate it and Bill assaulted it So now the U. S. presidential circus descends into the gutter with an almost insane, sad hilarity to it all. We’ve got a lewd, p***y-grabbing Trump who actually has great financial sense and is running as a legitimate outsider who can shake up the system. Then we’ve got Hillary Clinton and her spy / lover sidekick Huma, with Bill Clinton assault victim Gennifer Flowers explaining that Bill Clinton told her “Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had.” (Seriously, I warned you this article was going to get crude…) And finally we have Bill himself, who is a serial rapist and sexual assault predator who gets a free pass by the same leftist media trying to destroy Trump. Every time Bill rapes another women, Hillary’s job is to cover it up and destroy the victim, and if you ask me, destroying some woman’s reputation for real is far worse than anything Trump might be saying in mere words. Has any woman accused Donald Trump of raping them? Assaulting them? Biting their lip until they bled? Not a single one. But Bill Clinton has been accused of all those and more. Whatever Donald Trump does with women in their bedrooms, it is apparently carried out with consent. Contrast that to the legacy of Bill Clinton, who is the white, legally immune version of Bill Cosby, engaged in actual sexual ASSAULTS of women who are then double victimized when Hillary comes along and destroys their reputations for threatening to speak out. Trump’s words were horrific and stupid, but Bill and Hillary Clinton’s actions were CRIMINAL. And while every effort in the world is being made to dredge up every personality flaw and verbal gaffe Donald Trump ever made, the same measure of effort is being used to cover up, gloss over or bury the real crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton. So the scrutiny, you see, is all directed solely at one candidate. We are all being told to ignore the traitorous actions of Hillary Clinton and her massive Clinton cartel of corruption while solely focusing our full attention on Donald Trump’s “p***y grabbing” comment from 2005. This is nothing more than journalistic sleight of hand to keep you focused on one thing while they’re stealing the election.
This post was published at Natural News by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.
While the media is transfixed with the just released Washington Post leak of a private Donald Trump conversation from 2005 in which he was speaking “lewdly” about women, and for which he has apologized, roughly at the same time, Wikileaks released part one of what it dubbed the “Podesta emails“, which it describes as “a series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.” While the underlying story in this specific case involves the alleged kickbacks received by the Clinton Foundation from the Russian government-controlled “Uranium One”, a story which has been profiled previously by the NYT, and about which Wikileaks adds that “as Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons”, what caught our attention is an email from Tony Carr, a Research Director at Hillary for America, in which he lay outs hundreds of excerpts from the heretofore missing transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s infamous Wall Street speeches, with an emphasis on those which should be flagged as they may be damaging to Hillary.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 7, 2016.
Fed Governor Lael Brainard has donated to Clinton’s campaign and is widely viewed as a potential Clinton pick for Treasury secretary. Yellen hesitated and then demurred when Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey asked whether Brainard would have a conflict of interest if she were indeed in talks with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign about a position. The election takes place Nov. 8. ‘I would have to consult my counsel, I’m not aware that that’s a conflict,’ Yellen said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington, while rejecting Garrett’s suggestion that the U. S. central bank has a political bias. Source: Fed Politics in Spotlight as Yellen Cornered by Lawmaker | Bloomberg Imagine how higher management would feel about you reacting in the same situation. Goldman has been known to lay off its employees for even donating to the Trump campaign. So a similar situation would be you, an employee of a firm, donating to a political campaign, and later getting a promotion as a result of that donation. Of course, Lael Brainard herself has a long history of working in the executive branch to begin with. She initially served in Bill Clinton’s administration, and was appointed Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs early in Barack Obama’s presidency. In 2014, she was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governers, and it appears the majority of ‘conflicts of interest’ and connections with her past employers were largely ignored during her confirmation.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 5, 2016.
Hillary Clinton has been taking heat for her relationship with the Clinton Foundation. Did individuals and firms making large donations to the Foundation, or paying large speaking or consulting fees to Bill Clinton, get preferred access to Ms. Clinton as Secretary of State? Is there a revolving door between the Clinton campaign and the Foundation’s fundraising staff? Are these relationships the subject of the emails she deleted from her private server? These questions point to a more basic issue about the role of money in politics. What, exactly, do large corporations get in exchange for their campaign contributions? Ms. Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015 that netted her $21.6 million, including $1.8 million for just 8 speeches to large banks. (CNN provides eye-opening details about her speaking requirements – the $225,000 fee is just the tip of the iceberg.) Ms. Clinton is hardly known for her business acumen; her infamous cattle-futures trades are widely recognized as a political payoff, and her views on corporate governance have been ridiculed by experts. Her opinions on world politics are already in the public domain, so I doubt that Goldman Sachs was getting $200K worth of unique insight into global affairs. Bill Clinton, with zero experience in higher-education administration, bagged $17 million to be honorary chancellor of an obscure for-profit university. Why are these companies throwing their money away? Most people assume that campaign contributions, speaking and consulting fees and lucrative board positions for former and future politicians, and similar payments are pure graft, the kinds of pay-to-play arrangements common under crony capitalism. And some of these transfers surely do buy access and even specific policy outcomes. There are several problems with the common assumption, however. First, research on campaign contributions finds that the expected rate of return on these payments is quite high and yet, given the potential gains, the contribution amounts are remarkably small. Second, there is little systematic evidence that policies are, on average, greatly influenced by such contributions, leading some to suggest that this form of payment to politicians and political parties is mainly consumption, not investment.
Plenty of overlaps in meetings between Secretary of State Clinton and foundation donors. pic.twitter.com/pAltaKwcYc — AP Politics (@AP_Politics) August 23, 2016
In the latest confirmation that Hillary’s receipt of donations while Secretary of State was a conflict of interest at best and criminal cronyism and “favor peddling” at worst (it would be ideal if the DOJ could chime in here, however the just as conflicted Department of Justice, which is headed by a 1999 Bill Clinton appointee, has decided to avoid the topic of the Clinton Foundation for obvious reasons), AP reports that more than half, or at least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or spoke to Clinton while she led the State Department, donated to her family charity or pledged commitments. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 23, 2016.
On Thursday evening, alongside Trump’s unexpected statement of “regret“, Bill Clinton made another just as important announcement when he said that should Hillary become president, the $2 billion Clinton Family foundationwill no longer accept money from any corporate and foreign donors and will bring an end to its annual Clinton Global Initiative meeting regardless of the outcome of the November election. To this we responded that this was to be expected: after all “once Hillary is president, she will no longer need a backdoor way of legally receiving Saudi and other foreign money: at that moment, billions in Saudi dollars will be deemed perfectly acceptable for passage through the front door, mostly in exchange for weapons and ammo.” Other had similar reactions, with the announcement drawing skepticism on Friday mostly from the right left as critics wondered why the Clintons have never before cut off corporate and overseas money to their charity, and more importantly why they would wait until after the election to do so. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Friday that the Clintons’ continued acceptance of those dollars during the presidential campaign is a ‘massive, ongoing conflict of interest.” The left also spoke up, when Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator who was a leading surrogate for Clinton’s rival in the Democratic primary race, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), said the restrictions were a good step but should be imposed immediately. ‘In my opinion, and in the opinion of lots of Americans, this should have been done long ago,’ she said.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 20, 2016.
While we eagerly await news of the Clinton Family Foundation being “unexpectedly” hacked (after today’s Reuters prep piece), with a trove of documents revealing even more shocking crony kickbacks, “favors” and corruption, we are sad to report that should Hillary become president, said foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations, and will bring an end to its annual Clinton Global Initiative meeting regardless of the outcome of the November election. Well, of course: once Hillary is president, she will no longer need a backdoor way of legally receiving Saudi money: at that moment, billions in Saudi dollars will be perfectly acceptable for passage through the front door, mostly in exchange for weapons and ammo (fine, and the occasional favor), used to kill and maim innocent civilians and to supply the occasional Doctors Without Borders hospital bombing raid (which, oddly enough, has received zero coverage in the US media… how odd). *** Bill Clinton made the announcement at an afternoon meeting with foundation staff members, according to participants who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement. Clinton said the foundation plans to continue its work, but intends to refocus its efforts in a process that will take up to a year to complete. The former president, who turns 70 on Friday, said he will resign from the board, and the foundation will only accept contributions from U. S. citizens and independent charities.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 19, 2016.