What's new

US Politics

the-wall-street-journal-logo.png


Grifters-in-Chief
The Clintons don’t draw lines between their ‘charity’ and personal enrichment.

BN-QM679_PW1028_GR_20161027165700.jpg

Hillary and Bill Clinton in New York City, Sept. 22, 2014. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES


By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Oct. 27, 2016 7:26 p.m. ET


In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band,who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.


The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief.

The cross-pollination is flagrant, and Mr. Band gives example after example of how it works. He and his partner Declan Kelly (a Hillary Clinton fundraiser whom Mrs. Clinton rewarded by making him the State Department’s special envoy to Northern Ireland) buttered up their clients with special visits to Bill’s home and tête-à-tête golf rounds with the former president. They then “cultivated” these marks ( Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, UBS) for foundation dollars, and then again for high-dollar Bill Clinton speeches and other business payouts.

Teneo’s incestuous behavior also included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. The Band memo boasts that Mr. Kelly (while he was Mrs. Clinton’s State envoy) introduced the then-head of UBS Wealth Management, Bob McCann, to Bill Clinton at an American Ireland Fund event in 2009. “Mr. Kelly subsequently asked Mr. Mccann [sic] to support the Foundation, which he did . . . Mr. Kelly also encouraged Mr. Mccann [sic] to invite President Clinton to give several paid speeches, which he has done,” reads Mr. Band’s memo. UBS ultimately paid Bill $2 million.

American Ireland Fund meanwhile became a Teneo client, and made Mr. Kelly (of former State envoy fame) a trustee, where he “ensured that the AIF is a significant donor to the Foundation.” AIF then bestowed upon Mrs. Clinton a major award on her final trip to Northern Ireland in 2012, in an event partly sponsored by . . . Teneo.

Not that this is all one way. Mr. Band let slip just how useful all these arrangements were for Teneo, too, when he backhandedly apologized in the memo for hosting 15 client meetings in a hotel room rented by the Clinton Global Initiative.

The memo removes any doubt that the foundation is little more than an unregistered super PAC working on the Clintons’ behalf. Donors to the charity are simultaneously tapped to give Bill speech requests and other business arrangements, including the $3.5 million he was paid annually to serve as “honorary chairman” of Laureate International Universities. Mr. Band’s memo also notes his success at getting donors to “support candidates running for office that President Clinton was supporting.”

It’s now 2016 and Bill’s most favorite candidate is running for the presidency. There’s no question foundation donors are being “leveraged” for Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Band wants credit in the memo for prodding existing foundation donors to pony up more money, though the donation statistics he provides paint a different picture. By and large, donations to the foundation begin to spike dramatically in 2009 and 2010. Mr. Band didn’t form Teneo until 2011. What was happening in 2009? Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as one of the most powerful politicians on the planet.

The obvious question is where are the prosecutors? (For that matter, where is Lois Lerner when you need her?) Any nonprofit lawyer in America knows the ironclad rule of keeping private enrichment away from tax-exempt activity, for the simple reason that mixing the two involves ripping off taxpayers. Every election lawyer in the country lives in fear of stepping over the lines governing fundraising and election vehicles. The Clintons recognize no lines.

Here’s the lasting takeaway: The Clintons spent their White House years explaining endless sleazy financial deals, and even capping their exit with a scandal over whether Bill was paid to pardon financier Marc Rich. They know the risks. And yet they geared up the foundation and these seedy practices even as Mrs. Clinton was making her first bid for the presidency. They continued them as she sat as secretary of state. They continue them still, as she nears the White House.

This is how the Clintons operate. They don’t change. Any one who pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting up the nation for all the blatant corruption that will follow.


Write to kim@wsj.com.

So what do you propose? We opt for a misogynistic, racist, Islamophobic, sexist xenophobe instead? What other choices are you offering?
 
Last edited:
So what do you propose? We opt for a misogynistic racist Islamophobic xenophobe instead?
You left out, "ignorant", "rude", and "dishonest". But "Islamophobic" seems inaccurate as "phobia" is meant to depict an unreasonable fear, whereas Trump's position is that "Muslims have to report the problems when they see them" - as is expected from everyone else, and was how some white supremacists planning terror were taken down last week: a girlfriend informed on them to law enforcement.

So what "Islamophobia" you perceive in Trump is likely just part of his already-existing xenophobia. Since Trump has married non-American women and hired (and then cheated) foreign workers for his projects he clearly doesn't fear foreign individuals; rather, the fear he expresses appears to be that of invasive foreign cultures - he rejects multi-culturalism, the idea that every culture is equally good and morally valid or acceptable.
 
You left out, "ignorant", "rude", and "dishonest". But "Islamophobic" seems inaccurate as "phobia" is meant to depict an unreasonable fear, whereas Trump's position is that "Muslims have to report the problems when they see them" - as is expected from everyone else, and was how some white supremacists planning terror were taken down last week: a girlfriend informed on them to law enforcement.

So what "Islamophobia" you perceive in Trump is likely just part of his already-existing xenophobia. Since Trump has married non-American women and hired (and then cheated) foreign workers for his projects. So he doesn't fear foreign individuals; rather, the fear he expresses appears to be that of invasive foreign cultures - he rejects multi-culturalism, the idea that every culture is equally good and morally valid or acceptable.

Your denial of Islamophobia is to be expected, but the world including sane American citizens luckily understand the reality. Trump is an ugly Islamofobe who wants to ban Muslims. Nothing more nothing less. There is no justification for his ugly and hateful message. No amount of sugarcoating can justify his heinous hatred.

You mean just like he fears black African Americans who get beaten up at his rallies? Or a disabled reporter which is mocked at his incredible rallies? What about the Mexicans who are labelled rapists and criminals? Trump and his white associates are afraid of everything around them. They are angry at everyone. It is not just Muslims. As for rejecting multiculturalism, that is a right wing myth to justify hate crimes against minorities including Muslims. The last time Breivik rejected multiculturalism he murdered innocent kids. We know what rejecting multiculturalism means nowadays. It is just a veil to justify hate against others.
 
Perhaps a small portion. There is no denying that many Trump supporters are cheering his awful ideas because they unequivocally relate to them. They cheer his insults and slurs towards Mexicans, Muslims, women, disabled people and so forth. I'm not buying that these are merely poor victims robbed of their jobs. They are vile and hateful creatures. Like I said, they are responsible for electing their own leaders. It was all dandy back then, but today everyone is reaping the harvest. Blaming others including Russia won't cut it.
Again, nobody blamed Russia for Trump, But that doesn't mean there isn't a relation between the two.

If you were 18 or older in 1980 and voted for Reagan, you are now 54 or older.

So, who supports Trump?

See for yourself:
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-nation/#/?_k=061lw7
https://www.yahoo.com/news/who-s-re...traits-beyond-the-polls-061622809.html?ref=gs

Back in December, a Washington Post analysis found that Trump's support skewed male, white, and poor. The male-female gap was 19 percentage points (47 percent support among men vs. 28 percent among women). He won a whopping 50 percent of voters making less than $50,000, 18 percentage points ahead of his support with those who earned more than that amount.
The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the absence of a college degree. Diplomas are what Ron Brownstein calls the “new Republican fault line.” Although white men without a college education haven’t suffered the same historical discrimination as blacks or women, their suffering is not imagined. The Hamilton Project has found that the full-time, full-year employment rate of men without a bachelor's degree fell from 76 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2013. While real wages have grown for men and women with a four-year degree or better in the last 25 years, they've fallen meaningfully for non-college men. Non-college men have been trampled by globalization, the dissolution of manufacturing employment, and other factors, for the last few decades.
Voters who agreed with the statement “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Trump. This feeling of powerlessness and voicelessness was a much better predictor of Trump support than age, race, college attainment, income, attitudes towards Muslims, illegal immigrants, or Hispanic identity.
The classic definition of authoritarianism implies a tradeoff—more security for less liberty—but MacWilliams says it’s also about identifying threatening outsiders and granting individuals special powers to pursue aggressive policies to destroy them.The best predictor of Trump support isn't income, education, or age, he says. In South Carolina, it was “authoritarianism … [and] a personal fear of terrorism”
Find a map of the United States and draw a thick red mark just east of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. That's Trump Country. Trump’s support is strongest from the Gulf Coast, through the Appalachian Mountains, to New York, among marginally attached Republicans (possibly former Democrats). It is a familiar map for some demographers, since it’s similar to a heat map of Google searches for racial slurs and jokes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/


There is absolutely no denying that Russia is cashing in and I say why not? Remember that the US is responsible for balkanizing and waging a Cold War against Russia. Russia and the US aren't the best of buddies to put it mildly.
Oh, so it is the US that is responsible for fear in Russia in former Warsaw Pact countries? It has no relation with the post-worldwar2 period of Russian dominance - occupation - of those countries? And Russia is not doing anything to bring about a Cold War itself? See e.g. military exercises, irresponsible military behaviour are sea and in the air? Placing moore troops and potentially nuclear short range ballistic missiles smack in the heart of Europe? If the US and Russia aren't best of friends, that is the fault of the US, and never Russia itself?

Yes, Russia would gladly interfere and support their man. Besides, can't we accuse the US of interfering in the elections of other nations? Russia is naturally going to support the guy which it deems as most favorable. Makes perfect sense. The US is renowned for overthrowing regimes and occupying nations because they are a threat to their interests. Russia is just hacking computer systems. I think we need to make that distinction.
There is a very big difference between having and voicing a preference for one candidate or another and actively engaging in information warfare. But you know this. Apparently you think it is ok for Russia to hacks DNC computers.
And sure, the US never went anywhere with a UN mandate, right?. And the UN ok, that means your country's ok too!
 
Last edited:
Trump the lunatic. A guy who insults Muslims, Mexicans, women.. pussy grabbing Islamophobe mean tweeter nazi ..
weak sauce, bro
photo.jpg


My country doesn't even piss on your hate mongering country.
curious, which is your country, the Netherlands or Pakistan ? :what:




-----------------------------------------------------------

 
You quoted (and edited, of course) my original post where i quoted the Democrat Campaign Manager who clearly stated the FBI was involved in a conspiracy with the "KGB", i never mentioned anything about the FSB. So i think you veered of track, not me. Next time don't randomly quote people out of context and then not expect different answers.
Oh really? Hang on.


YOUR Post #2032

https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...6-news-and-views.374363/page-136#post-8873358

Like i said, no proof the FBI or Trump are working with "KGB", only speculation and scare mongering by Conspiracy nutjobs like Hillary.


MY post #2035

https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...6-news-and-views.374363/page-136#post-8873778

[Desert Fox said:


Like i said, no proof the FBI or Trump are working with "KGB", only speculation and scare mongering by Conspiracy nutjobs like Hillary.
]


I wasn't talking about the FBI working with FSB, that's just your imagination. As for Trump working with FSB, I didn't say that either. I pointed out that Russia is actively interfering, in a varietyof ways. But that is a point lost on you, because you're too busy being partisan, in an election you can't even vote in (but then again, you're not much for democratic process anyway, right? So how come you spend so much time on this?)

Clearly there was no editting. More of your BS?
 
Last edited:
Your denial of Islamophobia is to be expected -
Since you offer no counterargument AND say you expected my response, that implies you knew that you threw out "Islamophobic" as a smear.

(Oh, and I forgot to add that Trump's a male chauvinist. Very important.)

- but the world including sane American citizens luckily understand the reality.
It's not "luck" but the mainstream media.

Trump is an ugly Islamofobe who wants to ban Muslims. Nothing more nothing less. There is no justification for his ugly and hateful message. No amount of sugarcoating can justify his heinous hatred.
9/11, ISIS, Hezbollah, Iran - they're all "no justification" to you. GOt it.

You mean just like he fears black African Americans who get beaten up at his rallies?
Note that these few incidents are by individuals, whereas most of the campaign violence has been anti-Trump and if Wikileaks James O'Keefe is to be believed, may be politically organized by parts of the Clinton campaign.

What about the Mexicans who are labelled rapists and criminals?
See "9 Things You Need To Know About Illegal Immigration And Crime"

Trump and his white associates are afraid of everything around them. They are angry at everyone. It is not just Muslims. As for rejecting multiculturalism, that is a right wing myth to justify hate crimes against minorities including Muslims. The last time Breivik rejected multiculturalism he murdered innocent kids. We know what rejecting multiculturalism means nowadays. It is just a veil to justify hate against others.
There's no indication that Trump supports violent anti-multiculturalism a la Breivik; cultural acceptance of such violence is, however, associated with may of the Muslim Arabs of the Middle East and their supporters, Dubai being the most notable exception.
 
Last edited:
I live in Massachusetts and it allows early voting. So I cast my vote today. I must tell you that living in Massachusetts is like living in China -- it's a one-party state. Most of the people running for the various offices, national and local, are not only all Democrats but are running unopposed.

So I just voted for president, the only one that matters. And I voted for Johnson/Weld -- the only sane choice in a race filled with sociopaths and nutcases.
 
at this stage, Weld might as well come out as a Hillary Proxy, maybe we'll get confirmation in the next wikidump.
 
Oh really? Hang on.


YOUR Post #2032

https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...6-news-and-views.374363/page-136#post-8873358

Like i said, no proof the FBI or Trump are working with "KGB", only speculation and scare mongering by Conspiracy nutjobs like Hillary.


MY post #2035

https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...6-news-and-views.374363/page-136#post-8873778

[Desert Fox said:


Like i said, no proof the FBI or Trump are working with "KGB", only speculation and scare mongering by Conspiracy nutjobs like Hillary.
]


I wasn't talking about the FBI working with FSB, that's just your imagination. As for Trump working with FSB, I didn't say that either. I pointed out that Russia is actively interfering, in a varietyof ways. But that is a point lost on you, because you're too busy being partisan, in an election you can't even vote in (but then again, you're not much for democratic process anyway, right? So how come you spend so much time on this?)

Clearly there was no editting. More of your BS?
And yet you proved my point again. You quote one thing and turn it into something else. Now stop wasting my time.
 
I live in Massachusetts and it allows early voting. So I cast my vote today. I must tell you that living in Massachusetts is like living in China -- it's a one-party state.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. You can register as a Democrat and vote in the primaries between different Democratic candidates. And these candidates don't need to get vetted by the Dem Party hierarchy to get on the ballot, do they? Just 10,000 signatures from other registered Dem Party voters will get you on a statewide ballot: link
 
And yet you proved my point again. You quote one thing and turn it into something else. Now stop wasting my time.
`No, not really. Well, maybe in your alternate reality, but here in the real world, there was no editting, which was amply demonstrated.

YOU keep posting, why don't YOU stop wasting both our time.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom