‘Clinton Cash’ book alleges foreign donations to family foundation linked to political favors

A new book accuses the Clinton Foundation — run by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, her husband Bill Clinton, and their daughter Chelsea — of accepting quid pro quo donations from foreign sources while Mrs Clinton was secretary of state.

The book — “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” — will no doubt ignite a new level of scrutiny over the political ambitions of Hillary Clinton, currently the lone candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

Clinton’s campaign has asserted that the 186-page investigation by Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, is yet another right-wing hatchet job that leans on bias and innuendo.

Under the microscope are cash infusions to the charitable Clinton Foundation, as well as speaking fees incurred by former US president Bill Clinton, during Hillary Clinton’s four years as secretary of the US State Department under President Barack Obama’s administration.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Schweizer wrote in the book, according to the New York Times, which gained access to an advanced copy.

The Clintons’ income was at least $136.5 million between 2001 and 2012, Schweizer wrote in the book, echoing a figure reported by the Washington Post. The Post, New York Times, and Fox News all have agreements with Schweizer to expand further on the storylines he pursued in the book, the Times reported.

Screen Shot 2015-04-20 at 4.33.19 PM

“During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and wealthy individuals, he added.

“Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, payments to Bill Clinton for speeches went up: “Of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state,” Schweizer wrote.

Read more

Hillary Clinton: What to know about her recent controversies, scandals

In 2011, for example, Bill Clinton made $13.3 million for 54 speeches, most of them made overseas, the book reported.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s young presidential campaign, said Schweizer’s book is part of the conservative attack machine that will certainly continue to target Clinton with unrelenting fervor.

The book, he said, consists of “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and that “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”

Screen Shot 2015-04-20 at 4.34.35 PM

Recent books on the Clintons’ political dealings — including “Blood Feud” and “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine” — have been accused of being thinly-veiled attack efforts that are low on credibility. “Clinton Cash,” however, relied on extensive investigative reporting with detailed source citations to tax records, government documents, and the like, the Times reported. Though Schweizer also makes clear in the book he is no fan of the Clintons.

This is not the first time the Clinton Foundation donors and their relationship to the most powerful family in US politics have been questioned.

As RT has reported, from 2009 up to 2013, the year the Ukrainian crisis erupted, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which is headquartered in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, calling into question whether the donations were an attempt to curry favor from the US State Dept. Several alumni of oligarch Pinchuk’s program have already graduated into the ranks of Ukraine’s parliament, while a former Clinton pollster went to work as a lobbyist for Pinchuk at the same time Clinton was working in government.

According to the International Business Times, the Clinton Foundation accepted million of dollars from a Colombian oil company before then-Secretary of State Clinton changed her previous position and supported a US-Colombia trade deal, controversial for its links to human rights violations. In addition, after the deal was finalized, Clinton’s State Department “never criticized or took action against the Colombian government for alleged violations of labor rights at Pacific Rubiales,” the oil company “at the center of Colombia’s labor strife,” IBT reported.

In early April, McClatchy News Service reported that, since 2001, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — governments that have been maligned for their dismal human rights records and for ties to terror funding throughout the Middle East — gave as much as $40 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In March, it was reported by the Wall Street Journal that the Clinton Foundation had accepted as much as $68 million from elite donors with close ties to foreign governments and state-run companies while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The conflict-of-interest allegations were denied by the Clintons, who said the donations were part and parcel of building coalitions to tackle the world’s most pressing issues.

Screen Shot 2015-04-20 at 4.38.13 PM

Amid mounting criticism, the Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would revise its policy of accepting donations from Germany, Britain, Canada, and other nations, while curbing money from Middle Eastern countries.

Lindsey Graham: 91 Percent Chance I’m Running For President Photo of Al Weaver

Screen Shot 2015-04-19 at 12.46.51 PM

BY AL WEAVER

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said there is a 91 percent chance he will seek the GOP nomination for president in 2016 on “Fox News Sunday.”

Graham made the remark after host Chris Wallace mentioned how former HP CEO Carly Fiorina made news a few weeks ago saying there’s a 90 percent chance she’ll be seeking the nomination as well.

WALLACE: What’s the percent chance that you’re going to get in? GRAHAM: 91. WALLACE: Seriously? GRAHAM: Yea, I think so. I’ve gotta put the means together. I think I’ve got a good message. I think I’ve been more right than wrong on foreign policy. I’ve criticized the president for leading from behind, for being weak and indecisive. I’ve been a problem solver in Washington, and I think I’ve got something to offer the party and the nation. I’ll make that decision in May. If I can raise the money, I’ll do it.

TED CRUZ TOO EXTREME FOR LINDSAY GRAHAM- WELL THAT’S A PLUS

Screen Shot 2015-04-17 at 4.41.51 PM

Second Amendment provides the “ultimate check against government tyranny”

By TRUEBLUENZ | APRIL 17, 2015

“The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny, for the protection of liberty,” Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz wrote in an email Thursday, with the subject line “2nd Amendment against tyranny.”

Cruz’s argument that the Second Amendment provides the “ultimate check against government tyranny” is a bit too extreme for potential 2016 rival and fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-South Carolina).

Graham backed off when reporters asked if he agreed that the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right to revolt against a tyrannical govt.”I’m not looking for an insurrection. I’m looking to defeat Hillary,” he said. “We’re not going to out-gun her.”

“I think the Second Amendment allows people to protect their homes and their property and be secure in their persons,” the senator said. “I think in a democracy the best check on government is voter participation. I think the First Amendment probably protects us more there.”

It protects progressive RINOs like Lindsay Graham, but try saying something outside the progressive controlled paradigm in media and academia and see how far it gets you. Graham is a left wing weasel who should have gone joined the Democrats three decades ago.

We’re going to see just how far free speech gets you today once Cruz looks like he’s mounting some sort of threat to runs by establishment picks Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

A Woman Who Was Sexually Assaulted by Bill Clinton Drops a BOMB on Hillary

Screen Shot 2015-04-15 at 6.28.30 PM

On November 29, 1993, White House volunteer aide Kathleen Willey claims she was sexually assaulted by President Bill Clinton.

Hillary tried to hide this for years but now Wiley wants to make sure she doesn’t become president.

According to Willey, she was invited to a private meeting in the Oval Office with President Clinton. There, he pounced on her and kissed her before she was able to get away. Later that very day, Willey’s husband Ed committed suicide.

Wanting to go public with her story, Willey was quickly shot down by Hillary, who at the time ran a“war room” designed to crack down on the women who Bill assaulted, and to ensure that their claims never saw the light of day.

During an interview with Aaron Klein’s Investigative Radio on Sunday, Willey said:

“What has she done, what has she accomplished to run for president, to become the president of the United States?” Willey asked. “I can’t find, for the life of me, one thing. And if I could find one thing, I would acknowledge that fact. But I haven’t seen one single accomplishment that would give her the credentials to be president of the United States.”

When asked about Hillary’s perceived focus on women, Willey replied, “Well, that’s a joke, if that’s her one credential for running for president, then why don’t I run. I’m a woman. It makes absolutely no sense. … There are a lot more women out there way more qualified than she. The only thing Hillary has been successful on is riding in on the coattails of other men – like Obama and her husband. That’s it.”

Hillary needs to be stopped!