Posts

Backlash Against Trump Continues in Fight With Slain Army Captain’s Family

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton defended the bereaved parents of a Muslim U.S. Army captain, saying Donald Trump has a “total misunderstanding” of American values and has inflamed divisions in American society. Her comments came after the Republican nominee refused to back down from his criticism of the Gold Star parents’ remarks.

Making her most extensive statements about the Khan family since Trump criticized their Thursday night convention appearance, Clinton expressed concerns about the GOP nominee’s character, saying he repaid a family that made the “ultimate sacrifice” with “nothing but insults” and “degrading comments about Muslims.”

“I do tremble before those who would scapegoat other Americans, who would insult people because of their religion, their ethnicity their disability,” she told parishioners in a Cleveland church on Sunday morning. “That’s just not how I was raised.” (Read more from “Backlash Against Trump Continues in Fight With Slain Army Captain’s Family” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

McCain Family Member Decides to Support Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

In yet another case of party members changing their allegiances, Caroline McCain, the granddaughter of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, has announced she will vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in November.

Writing an article for Medium.com, McCain cited several factors which led her to the decision to leave the Republican Party.

She recalled Trump questioning whether her grandfather was actually a war hero.

Saying her grandfather responded to the incident gracefully and with forgiveness, she admitted to still holding a grudge for Trump’s remarks.

“He insulted my grandfather and attacked the very qualities — loyalty, bravery and selflessness — that he and countless other POWs embody,” she said.

She also blamed the Republican Party itself for being instrumental in her decision, writing, “The party I grew up in, the party I want to work in and change and push to be more inclusive, betrayed me and countless others.”

McCain asserted that loyalty to country is more important than party loyalty.

She goes on to write that she wants nothing to do with the Republican Party if it is willing to have as its presidential nominee a man she called a “racist” and “misogynist” who she says wants to ban Muslims and try to keep immigrants from entering the country.

McCain said that while watching the Democratic National Convention this week, she made the decision to leave her party and support Clinton, despite issues she has with the nominee.

These issues include questions about the Clinton Foundation’s finances and her unwillingness to speak with the press.

She admitted that these are not the candidates she wanted, nor is this the election she hoped for.

“So I’m not a Democrat — at least not yet. But this year, ‘I’m With Her,’” she concluded.

McCain was a college student when her grandfather ran against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. At that time, she said in an interview that if George W. Bush had been running for re-election against Obama, she would have voted for Obama because Bush “does not represent the true face of the U.S.” (For more from the author of “McCain Family Member Decides to Support Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

THIS IS IT: Watch the Entire Movie “Clinton Cash” Now!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Send a link to everyone you know. It’s time to take action and reveal who the Clintons really are. The revelations will especially torque off Bernie Sanders fans, guaranteed.

(For more from the author of “THIS IS IT: Watch the Entire Movie “Clinton Cash” Now!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Was a Corporate Lawyer. A Children’s Advocate? Yes, but…

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Speakers at the Democratic National Convention have spent the better part of the last week crowing about Hillary Clinton’s career in law, ostensibly the story of a journeyman advocate organizing for children.

“It was at the Children’s Defense Fund that I met Hillary,” said incoming Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile. “Steel in her spine, Hillary didn’t want to talk about anything other than how to make children’s lives better.”

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was similarly effusive in her praise of Clinton’s career at the bar in the service of the marginalized. “We have a responsibility to one another,” she said. “It’s about who we are as a nation. It’s why after law school, she could have gone to a fancy law firm, but she chose to work at the Children’s Defense Fund, where she advocated for children with disabilities.”

The reality of Mrs. Clinton’s law career is more complicated.

Before graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, Mrs. Clinton moved in various legal circles of the New Left, often donating spare time to radical causes. She spent the summer of 1971 in California as a summer associate at Treuhaft, Walker, and Bernstein, an Oakland based firm founded by members of the American Communist Party. The firm represented Vietnam protestors at the University of California at Berkley as well as the Black Panther Party, a black power militant group.

On taking her J.D. in 1973, she sat for the D.C. and Arkansas bar exams, marking a fairly prosaic start to her career as a legal practitioner. Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam, an experience Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carl Bernstein characterized as a spectacular flameout in his 2007 biography of the Democratic presidential nominee.

“Of 817 applicants, 551 of her peers had passed, most from law schools less prestigious than Yale,” he said of the experience, noting that the D.C. bar was “hardly one of the toughest in the nation.”

She settled in Fayetteville, Arkansas in 1974, becoming one of the first female members of the faculty at University of Arkansas Law School. She gave classes in criminal law and helped establish a legal aid clinic that would lead her to one of her most notorious clients. During the course of her time on the law faculty, Mrs. Clinton staged a successful defense of 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor, an Arkansas man accused of the rape of a 12-year-old girl.

Mrs. Clinton later discussed the case candidly on an audio recording first uncovered by the Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman, telling a journalist named Roy Reed that she harbored little doubt as to his guilt. Still, she helped Taylor duck a harsh sentence.

“Oh he plea bargained,” she told Roy with a brief spout of laughter. “Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months.”

Simultaneous to Bill Clinton’s election as Arkansas Attorney General in 1977, Mrs. Clinton accepted an offer to join Rose Law Firm a white-shoe Little Rock practice with an august reputation throughout the south. Though she continued to publish about children’s issues in academic journals during this period, her legal work was dedicated almost exclusively to intellectual property and patent infringement law. She was the first woman who made full partner at the firm.

Rose Law grew in stature during Clinton’s tenure, taking on corporate clients and commercial interests with state business. The firm represented Walmart, whose corporate headquarters are in Bentonville, Ark., and TCBY, a major frozen yogurt franchise based in Little Rock.

Mrs. Clinton joined both corporate boards in the mid 1980s. With Mrs. Clinton on the firm masthead, Rose lawyers enjoyed unprecedented access to state legislators and regulators, a major selling point to out-of-state businesses attempting to navigate Arkansas’s regulatory regime. Firm partner William H. Kennedy III characterized Clinton as the firm’s “rainmaker,” in 1992.

The firm’s billable hours soared in the 1980s, due in no small measure to Clinton’s influence in her husband’s state house. Federal filings obtained by the New York Times indicate firm partners collected some of the highest billables in the state. Nor was her leverage exclusive to private practice — former Bill Clinton aides say Mrs. Clinton was regularly in the governor’s confidence when selecting appointees for the state bench.

Stature and scrutiny grew in equal measure for Mrs. Clinton, such that her time with the firm found itself on the business end of federal investigation during the 1992 presidential campaign, sprawling into a full-fledged congressional probe that engulfed her husband’s first term as president.

Though Mr. Clinton’s financial ties to the toxic Whitewater Development Corporation were themselves the subject of protracted inquiry, federal investigators determined that Rose Law’s role in brokering transactions were intended to deceive federal investigators.

Mrs. Clinton billed 60 hours over a year and a half on the case, which included at least a dozen meetings with one Seth Ward, an individual who federal regulators said facilitated illegal straw purchases. Missing records corroborating the billings and the meetings under subpoena for two years were later recovered in Mrs. Clinton’s book room in the White House residence.

Mrs. Clinton did in fact give time to pro bono representation at Rose Law. She was frequently granted leave from the firm to coordinate state initiatives, including a task force on rural poverty and the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, leading a lengthy but ultimately successful fight against state-mandated standards, testing and class sizes.

While in Arkansas she also cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a Children’s Defense Fund aligned group, and served in the Carter administration as chair of the Legal Services Corporation, all accomplishments for which the future presidential nominee was rained with accolades.

Nevertheless, discussion of her decades old ties to the South’s most prestigious firms, her corporate clients and the blemishes on her pro bono record have been conspicuously absent in a year dominated by anti-establishment rage. (For more from the author of “Hillary Was a Corporate Lawyer. A Children’s Advocate? Yes, but…” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chelsea Clinton’s Dud Speech Full of Gargantuan Contorted Garbage

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Chelsea Clinton introduced her mother, Hillary, and just before she walked out on stage, a video of “Hillary Clinton’s life” played. Both instances were an attempt to humanize Hillary, a woman who’s often seen as dry, boring, cold and off-putting. Distraction as a technique is as old as politics itself. Not only did this attempt fail, it shows how desperate Democrats are to keep voter’s focus off her record as a Senator and Secretary of State, and on her charming husband, motherly warmth and grandmotherly affections.

Chelsea Clinton

Following an evening of rousing speeches, including General John Allen and a pep talk by singer Katy Perry, Chelsea Clinton had the honor of introducing her mother. The final speech on the final night of the convention is the grand finale — the epic moment everyone is there for — no doubt she was tasked with continuing to build the momentum. Unfortunately, Chelsea’s delivery was rigid, dry, boring and predicable. Her tone sounded flat, her stories, one-dimensional and unmoving.

Had this been Chelsea’s first time giving such a speech to such a large audience, a pass might be in order. But Chelsea has literally been immersed in the realm of politics for so long, she undoubtedly is either completely jaded and this speech was a farce — or she actually believes this is real. Either way, she’s had many years to practice and has yet to learn how to give a rousing speech — the one comfort is perhaps she will take last night as a sign and go into a career other than politics.

Chelsea’s speech, as is often common with personal friends or relatives of the politician in the current spotlight, was meant to humanize Hillary Clinton, both because that makes the most obvious sense, as Chelsea is her daughter, and also because it couldn’t hurt. Not only were Chelsea’s attempts to humanize Hillary sparse and superficial — either in light of or regardless of, it’s clear this was an attempt to distract from Hillary’s actual political record, previous fundraising, and general liberal stance on major issues.

Who Is Hillary Clinton?

Anyone running for President should have their character, politics, record, behavior scrutinized. At a convention, the candidate and team get to project these things for targeted voters. In her speech, Chelsea described Hillary as her “wonderful, thoughtful, hilarious mother” and said one of her earliest, most fond memories was of her mother reading Goodnight Moon, a book nearly everyone recognizes. Also, doesn’t the thought of a younger Hillary Clinton reading a book to a much-younger-looking daughter conjure up warm fuzzies? Of course. That’s the idea.

Chelsea continued to describe her mother as loving, doting, consistent and a fighter. “Every single memory I have of my mom… is that regardless of what was happening in her life she was always always there for me. Every softball game, every piano recital…” She continued to paint an idyllic childhood: Sundays in church and time at the local library. “Whenever my mom was away for work, which thankfully didn’t happen very often, she would leave notes for me to open every day,” she said describing one note about the Eiffel Tower, when Hillary went to France to learn about their education system. “I treasure each and every one of those notes,” she said.

Chelsea transitioned to mentioning her parents’ political careers, but even those were painted with a broad stroke — “education, healthcare… were… what was keeping them up at night.” She quoted Hillary, “Public service is about service — “even if her fight for universal healthcare left her exhausted. Chelsea said when people ask her how her mom keeps going she responds. “She never, ever forgets who she’s’ fighting for.”

These anecdotes are not only vague and hardly even heart-warming, it’s a long-winded way of saying very little. Unlike, perhaps, Donald Trump, it’s not vague because we don’t know much about the type of President he’d be, it’s vague because with hefty careers both as a Senator and Secretary of State, we know exactly what type of President Hillary will be. Needless to say, it will have nothing to do with “public service” or Goodnight Moon.

Clinton’s record

While it’s not wrong to want to elect a president voters can rally behind, feel connected to or “believe in,” such things do not always contribute to a person actually being a good president. They are, basically, worthless when it comes to the role of Commander in Chief. Chelsea essentially told voters tonight: My Mom was around occasionally; she was a good person — vote for her.

This droll attempt to make Hillary the flaming liberal who, together with her husband, have earned $132 million in speaking fees since 2001, a nice Grandma who likes to Facetime with her grandkids and just wants to be a public servant is such a gargantuan, contorted, ball of outright lies, it’s hard to believe Democrats say these things, let alone actually believe them. While the former seems so disingenuous, it’s hard to take seriously, I fear the latter may actually be the reality, and thus much more alarming.

As nice as Chelsea might be, and as wonderful as a Grandmother Hillary might be, rather than take the anecdotal (if banal) word of a daughter who’s been living in a political bubble since birth, it might be wiser to look at why the convention so desperately tried to make Hillary look like “A Nice Grandma Who Wants To Serve.” Hillary’s as good at being liberal as she is at Facetiming her Grandkids. She was the 11th most liberal senator before she took on her role as Secretary of State which landed her smack in the middle of an FBI investigation even bigger than the Benghazi disaster. Hillary’s human, and that’s just fine, but that doesn’t make her fit to be President, regardless of how many nice words Chelsea says about her. (For more from the author of “Chelsea Clinton’s Dud Speech Full of Gargantuan Contorted Garbage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Gun Myths That Could Destroy Hillary’s Chances in November

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton is in trouble because she is an emotionless robot who the American people don’t like or trust.

Yet the many scandals and the fact that the out-of-touch Clintons act like American royalty are not the primary reasons why she may lose this fall. She might lose this fall because Democrats have made a huge miscalculation on the Second Amendment.

Last night, speaker after speaker at the Democratic National Convention called for more gun control.

Former NASA Astronaut, Captain Mark Kelly, argued “Hillary knows that we save lives by doing more to keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn. (F, 8%) bellowed, “Outrage that the gun lobby fights to keep open glaring loopholes that 90 percent of Americans want closed. Outrage that a suspected terrorist can walk into a store and walk out with a military-style, semi-automatic rifle.” Former Philadelphia and D.C. Chief of Police Charles Ramsey said “Hillary Clinton is the strong leader to protect our cops and communities from gun violence.”

It was heartbreaking to see victims of gun violence, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, paraded out to discuss their personal tragedies. These emotional speeches invoke sorrow and passion from all of us, and they should. But anyone wishing to have an intellectual discussion about gun laws has to look at the underlying rhetoric pushing stricter gun laws. After the curtain is pulled back and the speeches are over, the Left’s ongoing effort to chip away at the Second Amendment is exposed in plain sight.

Last night exposed three myths that Democrats are trying to sell the public about gun control.

Myth 1: Gun Control is Good Politics

This couldn’t be further from the truth – gun control is bad politics.

The New York Times reports that “After Years of Setbacks, Democrats Again See Gun Control as a Winning Issue, July 27, 2016.

After treating gun control as political poison for two decades, Democrats led by Hillary Clinton are again vigorously championing new gun restrictions as a central element of their campaigns.

The Times cited what happened the last time Democrats ventured down this path.

It is a pronounced shift. Stung by the loss of the House in 1994 after they enacted an assault rifle ban, and wary of the proven influence of the National Rifle Association, many Democrats have shied away from gun control proposals for fear of provoking an electoral backlash with little to show for it. Democrats couldn’t race away from a discussion of gun laws fast enough.

Fast forward to Al Gore’s run for the presidency in 2000. A piece published by the New Republic on January 29, 2001, told a story that sounds remarkably familiar to the situation we see today. “If you were a gun-control supporter last spring, life was sweet. Al Gore and Bill Bradley were climbing over each other trying to prove their devotion to the issue.”

Then after the election …

Yet talk to Democratic politicians about gun control these days and what’s palpable is the silence. Not long after the election, The Washington Post reported that “several lawmakers suggested that party leaders may be better off playing down their support for gun-control legislation,” a sentiment echoed two days later in The New York Times. Conservative Democrats like Marion Berry of Arkansas confide that “[Dick] Gephardt has said [the leadership] is not going to whip us on [gun control] anymore.” And even a reliable liberal like Barney Frank advises that there’s not “going to be a major push on this [issue].”

America has not changed that much on gun issues.

Myth 2: Polling Indicates that Voters want Gun Control

Polling may indicate that Americans in general support gun control, but that is not necessarily true of Americans who vote, and that number masks the fact that pro-Second Amendment voters bring passion and activism that is missed in polling data.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll recently indicated that 51% of Americans support a ban on so-called assault weapons, and 48% oppose. When asked if people support the idea of individuals being able to carry guns for self-defense, the numbers were 54% support and 42% oppose. The poll numbers are overwhelming, the American people support individuals on the FBI watch list from being banned from getting guns, yet the Bill of Right forbids this.

While the American people may marginally favor gun control, time after time, voters have punished gun-grabbing politicians. What’s more, the voters motivated to protect the Second Amendment are far more likely to vote, make calls, knock on doors and work to get pro-gun candidates elected.

Myth 3: Violence in America is Caused by Access to Guns

“Guns don’t kill, people do.” It’s a phrase we’ve all heard before but it’s worth repeating because it’s true. And the truth is, it’s factually untrue to claim that guns are the source of all violence.

During his run for President, following the shooting of two Virginia TV news employees in 2015, Sen. Marco Rubio argued that society has so devalued life and this in itself is a bigger cause of death than the existence of guns. He’s right.

What law in the world could have prevented him (the perpetrator of the Virginia shooting of a TV news crew) from killing them, whether it was with a gun or a knife or a bomb. What has happened to us as a society that we now devalue life to such a level? What has happened in our society that people have become so violent? That’s the fundamental question we need to confront.

I have written about this culture of death in the past, arguing that violence in video games, movies and culture in general, has led to a devaluation of life. Society has devalued life and that devaluation makes it easier for some people to take life away.

The Left would never dare to speak of one potential cause. Movies glorifying mass murder, or video games where a kid can engage in serial murder, have proven to be motivating factors for mass murderers of the past. The Left would argue that these forms of entertainment are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, yet, a law abiding citizen who wants to own an automatic firearm or an individual who was falsely placed on a government list of prohibited persons, are not protected by those same Bill of Rights.

As history has proven, Americans aren’t ready to throw away any part of the Second Amendment any time soon. Even if she is successful at continues at perpetuating these myths, Hillary Clinton may be going down the path of Al Gore and the many House Democrats who lost jobs over the President Bill Clinton-passed gun ban in the mid-1990s. (For more from the author of “3 Gun Myths That Could Destroy Hillary’s Chances in November” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is This Hillary’s New Libya Narrative?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lanny Davis, trusted Clinton surrogate and advisor, told Washington’s WMAL radio station Thursday that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is not to blame for Libya’s current state of affairs because the U.S. role was under a joint NATO operation.

Davis’s comments may indicate the Clinton campaign intends to blame Libya’s failed state on NATO and President Barack Obama, to absolve her significant role in pushing for the intervention in 2011. Clinton was a strong advocate of military force against NATO in 2011. Sidney Blumenthal, a trusted Clinton confidant and Davis friend, even emailed Clinton in 2011 counseling her, “this is an historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it.”

When WMAL radio hosts asked Davis about Clinton’s complicity in the Obama administration’s withdrawal from Iraq, Davis retorted “that was Obama’s policy.” Davis’s comments may indicate the Clinton campaign intends to drastically play down Clinton’s role in the effects of Obama’s foreign policy, while simultaneously taking credit for the office of Secretary of State.

Davis’s comments portrayed the Libyan intervention as one that NATO, with France in the lead, would pursue regardless of a U.S. role in the operation. Washington committed significant U.S. assets to the operation, and was critical in bringing the fall of Libyan dictator Colonel Gadhafi. A New York Times report from February 2016, examining the U.S. decision-making process in Libya, revealed that Clinton was the key to Obama’s decision to intervene. (Read more from “Is This Hillary’s New Libya Narrative?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Two Giant Reasons the IRS Is Investigating the Clinton Foundation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

News recently broke that Hillary Clinton’s foundation is under IRS investigation, and at least part of that investigation centers on two companies.

This follows reports that Laureate Education and Uranium One have paid out (in the tens of millions) to the Clinton Foundation and in return have received immense taxpayer-funded benefits.

The Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom, purchased in January 2005 a Canadian company — UrAsia — with uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America, reports the New York Times. This purchase made the Russian agency one of the largest uranium producers in the world.

Leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have donated in excess of $25 million according to the Clinton Foundation’s website, built and eventually sold the Russians the aformentioned company that is today known as Uranium One.

Before the Rosatom acquired the Canadian mining stakes, UrAsia had to obtain the vast uranium stakes it held at the time of the merger.

[dcquiz] Frank Giustra, a major mining investor in Canada and owner of UrAsia, won a landmark uranium deal in Kazakhstan just days after visiting with Mr. Clinton, reports the New York Times. The two men boarded Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Kazakhstan where they met with the country’s autocratic president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton, in addition to helping Giustra, undermined American foreign policy by expressing his personal support for Nazarbayev’s desire to head an international elections monitory group, reports the New York Times.

Shortly after the former president and Mr. Giustra visited the nation, the then embryonic UrAsia signed a preliminary contract “giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.” Following this very private visit, Mr. Giustra donated some $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and five months later Mr. Giusta held a fundraiser for the joint Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative where he alone pledged $100 million dollars.

UrAsia merged with Uranium One and almost immediately the new company began picking up uranium holdings in the United States. The company soon purchased in excess of 38,000 acres of across Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and other western states as well. Following this large acquisition, Uranium One stated it’s intent on making itself a “powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” reports the New York Times.

Some $8.65 million dollars in donations were made to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One and former UrAsia investors between 2008 and 2012.

The new rising global uranium conglomerate experienced a sharp and decisive blow when it’s stock fell 40 percent. Fearing the loss of their holdings in Middle East, Uranium One looked to the US embassy in Kazakhstan to negotiate for them with the nation’s officials, reports the New York Times. These discussions would have gone directly through Secretary of State Clinton, but the Clinton campaign did not respond to inquiries about this deal.

A few days after these negotiations, a subsidiary of Rosatom purchased “17 percent of Uranium One.” Not even a year later the Russian government offered Uranium One stakeholders a “generous offer,” that would give the Russian agency a “51 percent controlling stake.”

The US government had to sign off first, a decision that must go through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes executive members of the cabinet, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state.

John Barrasso, a Senator from Wyoming where Uranium One had its largest operation, wrote President Barack Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” During this time, a Russian bank that would assign a “buy rating to Uranium one stock” paid Mr. Clinton $500,000 dollars to speak in Moscow.

The decision had to go through the Committee, which included Secretary Clinton. At the time, her husband, in addition to the speaking arrangements, was “collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.” The Committee approved the deal in October of 2010.

The only reported Uranium Official to give to the Foundation was the chairman, Ian Tefler, who gave in 2007 less than $250,000. Mr. Tefler’s family charity the Fenwood Foundation, however, donated millions of dollars from 2009 to 2013, reports the New York Times.

The Committee approved sale of the Canadian mining stakes provided the Russians with direct control of “one-fifth of all uranium production” in the United States, reports the New York Times. While the Russians were taking control of Uranium One between 2009 and 2013, Canadian records highlight a “flow of cash made its way” into the pockets of the Clinton Foundation.

Rosatom took 100 percent stake in Uranium One in 2013 and shortly thereafter privatized the company.

The other company that could get Hillary into hot water is Laureate International Universities. Laureate hired former President Clinton for $16.5 million dollars over five years to act as their “honorary chancellor.” The company also donated between $1 and $5 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to the foundation’s website.

While Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill was drawing a check from Laureate, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), invested $150 million into the company marking the largest single contribution the IFC has made in education. The largest contributor to the IFC is the US government, which during the same period contributed $55 million to the International Youth Foundation (IYF). Coincidentally, or not, the IYF, IFC, and the Clinton Foundation all participated in foundation programming.

The IFC also made a $150 million dollar contribution to a company owned by Frank Giustra.

“The Clinton Foundation board mainly consists of close friends, business colleagues and big donors to the Clintons,” Richard Pollock of TheDCNF reported. (For more from the author of “The Two Giant Reasons the IRS Is Investigating the Clinton Foundation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Clinton Aide Reveals ‘Nightmare Scenario’ That Could Hurt Her Chances in November

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Hillary Clinton could soon be hit by an “October Surprise,” consisting of a release of even more sensitive information to the Clinton campaign by Russian hackers.

Democratic Party officials have already been hit by hackers.

“That is a nightmare scenario, and let’s hope that we don’t see an October surprise — emails from Hillary Clinton’s server that have either been in the press, or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen,” said retired Adm. James Starvis

The Russian hackers have not been confined to hitting just the DNC in their efforts. They have also hacked the Joint Chiefs as well as the private email servers of some Clinton campaign staffers. Furthermore, the Clinton Foundation itself has been hacked. Security officials believe that Clinton’s private server while she served as secretary of state has also been hacked.

Fiona Hill, a former intelligence official and author of the book Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, stated, “It’s much more nuanced than just influencing the election; it’s more about putting a spotlight on the United States’ failings and damaging the credibility of our political system and our political elites.”

Hill went on, “The advantage of that (for Putin) is that it will be extraordinarily difficult for whoever comes into office in January to forge a coherent foreign policy. The United States will be pretty wounded on the global stage.”

Mark Galeotti, a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, said of the Russian government, “I don’t think they necessarily want or expect to see a Trump presidency. Rather, they want a weak Clinton White House that is too mired in domestic disputes and struggling to achieve a mandate at home to be that effective or aggressive abroad.” (For more from the author of “Top Clinton Aide Reveals ‘Nightmare Scenario’ That Could Hurt Her Chances in November” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Campaign Manager Laughs, Evades Reporter’s Question

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the upcoming presidential race set to go full tilt, questions are beginning to surface as to when Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will hold her next press conference.

When Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager was asked during a luncheon held by The Wall Street Journal if Clinton would schedule a press conference prior to Election Day, he laughed and said, “We’ll see.”

The Washington Post reports Clinton’s last press conference was held on Dec. 4.

Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan, in an attempt to draw attention to Clinton’s lack of press conferences, wrote, “The candidate, famously opaque, answered a grand total of seven questions [in Iowa] on Dec. 4, 2015. Since then, although she’s given individual interviews, she hasn’t made herself available for general media questioning.”

Clinton has responded to inquiries into her lack of press conferences by drawing attention to the one-on-one interviews she has granted, along with answering general questions from the media.

Ruth Marcus, editorial board editor for The Washington Post, asked Mook if a Clinton administration would continue to decline press conferences.

Mook refused to speculate on the events following the election, adding that he would be on vacation at that time.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has blasted the media for allowing Clinton to go so long without a press conference.

While he was speaking with the press in Miami on Wednesday, he said, “It’s been 235 days since crooked Hillary Clinton has had a press conference and you as reporters who give her all these glowing reports should ask yourselves why. I’ll tell you why: Despite the nice platitudes, she’s been a mess.”

Trump went on to criticize the Democratic National Convention for its failure to mention ISIS or the plight of police officers in the U.S. (For more from the author of “Clinton Campaign Manager Laughs, Evades Reporter’s Question” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.