Daily Commentary – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 – Bill Clinton Pardoned His CIA Director After Classified Documents Found on his Home Laptop

  • But unlike in the case of Hillary, CIA Director John Deutch’s entire server was immediately confiscated by the Feds

Daily Commentary – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Download

Daily Commentary – Tuesday, June 2, 2015 – Hillary Clinton is a “Money Hungry Hypocrite”

  • According to former White House aide, Kathleen Willey who also claims that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1993

Daily Commentary – Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Download

FAUX Apology From ABC News George Stephanopoulos … Could He Have been More Sarcastic and Snarky?

This is what happens when you have a liberal media that does not punish their own for liberal media bias …

In the wake of the media bias scandal where ABC’s George Stephanopoulos failed to make it known that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and at the same time running cover for the Clinton Foundation amidst its own scandal of taking foreign money as she was Secretary of State, Georgy Porgy decided to apologize for his actions. If you call it an apology. But it was not just that George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House political operative, donated money to the Clinton Foundation, Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash and went after the author claiming that he was bias.

But check out the VIDEO below and the less than sincere apology. Listen to his snarky and elitist tone when he says, “Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.” In his effort to make an apology he basically says, but look at me, I am great, because even though I made these donations to save the word, no the planet … I should have gone the extra mile. PLEASE GEORGY, SPARE US THE DRAMA. You knew damn well, being a former Clinton operative and a political news correspondent that the Clinton Foundation was nothing more than a slush fund. Would it really have been that difficult to do some research and investigation to find what were the best charities for Aids, helping children or the environment, if you were actually being sincere? After all, you are supposed to be some kind of correspondent for the media, is it that difficult to do a Google search of best charities?

But when you have a news organization like ABC News defending such actions of bias and a lack of transparency to protect their own agenda of liberal bias in the media, what would one expect from an ex-Clintonista but a hollow apology.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.

Peter Schweizer, Author of ‘Clinton Cash’ on Fox News Sunday – 4/26/15

Peter Schweizer, author of the book,“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. So the Clinton’s  want us to believe it is all just one big coincidence. PLEASE!!!

Transcript from Fox News Sunday – 4/25/15:

WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.  Well, it’s the old adage — follow the money. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, who just launched her presidential campaign, following the money has led to some troubling questions. Today, we want to drill down into the controversy with Peter Schweizer, author of the new book, “Clinton Cash,” here for his first live interview.  But first, “Special Report” anchor Bret Baier, who’s been leading Fox News reporting on the book, has the highlights — Bret.  (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT ANCHOR: Chris, the dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of what “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer calls the Clinton blur, a mix of money and politics, diplomacy and personal interests all so interconnected that it’s pretty easy to get lost. From lucrative construction deals given to Hillary friends and family after the earthquake in Haiti to $500,000 and $750,000 speeches for Bill Clinton paid for by countries or foreign companies with some action or policy in front of his then-secretary of state wife, to a major uranium mining deal for Clinton friend Frank Giustra, a deal with the country Kazakhstan that is finalized during a Giustra trip with former President Clinton.

JO BECKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: And then soon after that, Bill Clinton got a huge donation, $31 million from Frank Giustra, to his charitable foundation, followed by a pledge to donate $100 million more.  BAIER: The company became Uranium One, and was eventually sold to a Russian company that is essentially controlled by Vladimir Putin. They now also control more than 20 percent of American uranium.  Officials with Uranium One and investors who profited from that deal donated more than $140 million to the Clinton Foundation. But millions of dollars of those donations were never disclosed, flying in the face of a deal the Clintons struck with the Obama administration.  Again, and all of this does not fit on a bumper sticker, but from the book and various media organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News, connecting some of the dots here, most political watchers will tell you, this is, at best for Hillary Clinton, a serious political issue for her campaign — Chris.

(END VIDEOTAPE) WALLACE: Brett, thank you.  Now, let’s bring in the man whose team spent 10 years on the Clinton money trail, Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash”. And welcome to “Fox News Sunday.”

SCHWEIZER: Thanks for having me, Chris.

WALLACE: Let’s start with the phrase that Bret mentioned you use in the book, the Clinton blur, the mix of private and public, of charity and government action.  What’s your point?

SCHWEIZER: The point is basically when former President Clinton travels the world, which he does extensively, he spends time in the developing world, in Europe. When he goes there, he’s usually wearing several hats. When his wife was in public office, he’s obviously the spouse of a very public figure, he’s the head of a charity, he’s also giving speeches and he’s probably there with an entourage that includes foreign businessmen that have matters before the government, in Colombia, or Kazakhstan, or wherever it may be.  And the problem is, when you have a mix of public and private, profit-making backed by the government power that your spouse has, I think it creates a very dangerous cocktail as far as conflict of interests is concerned.

WALLACE: Well, you have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you’re making. Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid, $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state.  Peter, what do you think that shows?

SCHWEIZER: Well, I think you can only come to one or two conclusions. Either in January of 2009 when Hillary Clinton becomes secretary of state, former President Clinton has become dramatically more eloquent than he ever was. He’s a very eloquent man.

WALLACE: Because his speaking fees went dramatically up.

SCHWEIZER: Dramatically. I mean, for example, in the uranium deal, there’s a $500,000 speech that he’s paid by an investment banking firm that is tied to Putin. He was paid $500,000. He had only given one speech in Russia before that five years earlier, for which he was paid a third of that.  So, the question becomes, why did his speaking fees go up and why did it go up with corporations and with individuals and with people connected to foreign governments who had business before the State Department?

WALLACE: What’s your answer?

SCHWEIZER: My answer is that’s extremely troubling. The fact you find it’s a very extensive pattern. There’s not one or two examples. There are 11 instances and I think when you have one or two examples, it’s a coincidence. When you have this many, to me it’s a trend.

WALLACE: OK, let’s go through a timeline, and it’s complicated. But a timeline of the uranium deal that you — that Bret mentioned and you reported in the book.  2005, Bill Clinton and Canadian millionaire Frank Giustra fly to Kazakhstan. Giustra lands a big uranium mining deal. Giustra gives the Clinton Foundation $31 million and later pledges $100 million more. 2010, a Russian company wants to buy Uranium One, which has taken over Giustra’s company. The new chairman of Uranium One donates $2 million to Clinton foundation, which fails to report that money. In June of 2010, Bill Clinton gets $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. In October, a U.S. government committee approves the sale of Uranium One to the Russian company. Question, is there a connection between always of those millions of dollars that are going to Clinton personally and to the Clinton Foundation and State Department’s approval of this uranium deal?

SCHWEIZER: I believe there is. It’s not just Frank Giustra. I lay out in the book, there are actually nine, nine major donors to the Clinton Foundation who had written multimillion checks that are tied to this deal. The two financial advisers that arrange for the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government, they’re both major Clinton contributors. The chairman of the company is, some of the key shareholders are.  The question becomes, when CFIUS approved this transfer in October, what role did Hillary Clinton play?

Read the rest, HERE.

NY Times Journalist Caught the Clinton Foundation Red-Handed in a Lie About a Meeting Between former President Bill Clinton and Kazatomprom, a Kazakhstan State-Owned Nuclear Holding Company

LIARS: If you actually care about America, you will watch the video below that shows of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Lied and sold out our country to the Russians …

How big was the New York Times story on Bill and Hillary Clinton and the uranium deal, bigger than you think. If Hillary Clinton and the Clinton’s are allowed to get away with this then this country is lost forever. At some point Americans have to actually care that those in power and have the ultimate power like president of the United States actually have an ounce of decency, credibility and ethics. The individual who holds the highest office in the land can’t be a complete and total liar and hide behind a gender card saying what difference does it make. When is enough, enough?

When Hillary Clinton announced that she was going to run for president in 2016, she stated, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” Clinton went on to further say, “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” AMERICA, WAKE THE HELL UP … HILLARY CLINTON IS THAT PERSON AT THE TOP THAT THE DECK IS STACKED IN FAVOR OF!!! Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have sold America out so that they could become rich, breaking every law that the so-called people she wants to champion would have been arrested and thrown in jail. America, we are no longer talking about Bill lied about sex with an intern … THESE LIES ARE MUCH, MUCH INSIDIOUS.

Fox News: Millions To Clinton Foundation In Exchange For Russian Uranium Deal

The Blaze:

But, as New York Times reporter Jo Becker reported, such a deal would require review by the U.S. government. That’s where Frank Giustra, a Canadian business executive and founder of the company that would become Uranium One, entered the picture.

Giustra reportedly set up a meeting between Kazatomprom officials and Bill Clinton himself — at the former president’s home in Chappaqua, New York.

Giustra has close ties to Bill Clinton and is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. The two even flew to Kazakhstan together when Giustra’s company landed a lucrative deal to secure uranium mines there.

Here’s where the lie comes in.

Becker told Fox News’ Bret Baier that when she first asked a Clinton Foundation spokesman and Giustra about the meeting, they both said no such meeting ever took place. However, when she informed them that the then-head of Kazatomprom not only told her that the meeting had taken place, but also showed her a picture of himself with Clinton at the Chappaqua home proudly displayed in his office, they were forced to admit the meeting occurred.

In 2007, Toshiba “sold a 10 percent stake in U.S. nuclear power plant builder Westinghouse,” Reuters reported.

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the U.S. State Department, foreign governments and businesses donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and paid millions in speaker fees to former President Clinton. Some of those same players then had business or policy issues later land on then-Secretary of State Clinton’s desk.

In addition to concerns about ethics of such practices, Clinton failed to disclose millions of dollars in big foreign donations to her husband’s foundation, which she had previously vowed to do. It was also reported that the Clinton Foundation is redoing five years worth of tax returns after a review by Reuters found several errors.

That’s the gist of the bombshell reports, based on Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Clinton Cash,” that emerged on Thursday.

Bill Clinton Tells Sky News on 9/10/01: “I Could Have Killed Osama bin Laden but Didn’t” … Guess What Took Place the Very Next Day?


The day before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, former President Bill Clinton spoke in Australia to about 30 business leaders during a lunch and stated on having passed on a chance to kill Osama bin Laden. A tape of Clinton’s comments were presented to Australia’s “Sky News” channel.

“And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” the former president reportedly says on the tape, to laughs. “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”

Just a reminder to Bill Clinton, you were the President of the United States and supposed to protect the lives of Americans, not worry about how the world would feel about you had you taken out Bin Laden with possible collateral damage.

Hmm, He would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan? You mean the one with a population of  1,151,100? So what would you have had to do again Mr. President? BTW, Clinton did not just have one chance to kill Osama Bin Laden, he had many.

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government.  It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps.  The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.



Hillary Clinton’s Top Selling Point for 2016 Presidential Election is not Any Accomplishments, Its Being First Female President

What a resounding reason to qualify or vote for Hillary Clinton to be president in 2016 … Hmm, How did that same “being first” work out with Obama?

According to a recent Gallup poll, the “best or most positive” reason to vote for Hillary Clinton is that she would be the first female president. Huh? So after all the years of politics behind her, 18% said the best reason to vote for her is just because she would be the first woman president. Just curious America, how did that little social experiment work electing Barack Obama the first black president? Hmm? Just 9% said it would be because of Hillary’s experience and foreign policy experience [can you say Benghazi, Iran, Russia reset and Middle East burning], while just 3% said she was the most qualified and capable, and 3% said healthcare reform [how did Hillary Healthcare work out?] and 2% said because of the economy.

So all America has to look forward to is a Democrat 2016 campaign of “War on Women” as we have been through six years of anyone who dares say anything negative about Obama’s policies is a racist. Isn’t enough, enough?

However, “nothing” scored 27% as the “best or most positive” reason to vote for Hillary Clinton and another 22% had no opinion or no clue. I guess this can explain why so many DNC individuals can’t name one thing that she has done. How can some one who was first lady of Arkansas from 1983 – 1992, was the first day of the United States from 1993 – 2001 [remember a Hillary said in 1992, "I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette." ... "Baking cookies and making tea (VIDEO)".], US Senator fro New York from 2001 – 2009, and Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013 and the greatest reason why she should be elected president is because she would be the first woman. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!


Seriously America, one of the main reasons why Barack Obama was elected president, other than GWB fatigue, a poor RINO Republican candidate and a poor economy was that he would be the first black president. That is of course if you discount Bill ‘Bubba’ Clinton. Wake the hell up!!! I do not care what party some one is from, your reason for voting for them can’t be because they are the first of anything. No one we can’t get qualified people in the White House.

Bill Clinton Back in His Element at Charity Gala … Poses for Picture with Two Hookers, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl, From the Famed Nevada Bunny Ranch Brothel

Hillary Clinton must be so proud of what she hopes is her future “First Man” … Tabloids and Late Night Comedy Shows are begging, even praying that Hillary wins in 2016 for the endless Bubba material!

You just can’t make this stuff up. Former President Bill Clinton is back in the tabloids after TMZ gets a hold of a picture of the former prez and two women at a gala charity event for Unite4Humanity. Seems innocent enough, right? Well, not when Slick Willie is involved. It turns out that the two women were prostitutes at the famed Nevada Bunny Ranch brothel, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl.  I guess it all depends on how you define selfie.

I did not take a picture with those two women, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl, I never told anyone to take a picture, not a single time

Bill Clinton2

click HERE to see the pic of Bill Clinton with two Bunny Ranch hookers

Slick Willie probably had no clue … but the women Bill posed with at an L.A. charity event Thursday night are two star hookers at the famed Nevada Bunny Ranch brothel.

The brunette goes by Ava Adora and the blonde goes by Barbie Girl. According to her bio on the BR website, the blonde is very flexible and specializes in de-virginizing. The brunette “knows how to please a variety of both men and women.”

We have no idea how they got in to the star-studded Unite4Humanity charity gala — which honored Clinton along with several other philanthropic celebs like Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese — but we can take a wild guess why they showed.

Hillary Clinton was asked for her opinion of Bill’s latest pic, at least it wasn’t with porn stars this time.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s Hit List: She Kept a File of Sinners and Saints … A Special Circle of Clinton Hell Reserved for People Who Endorsed Obama over Hillary

So Democrats, are you on Hillary’s Hit List?

This morning The Politico writes about Hillary Clinton’s hit list. Who would possibly believe that some one so warm, kind and compassionate like Hillary Clinton could have a “hit list” for paybacks against individuals who abandoned her in favor of Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination in the run up to the 2008 presidential election and thus devastating her life-long political aspirations of becoming president? Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. According to the Politico, those that stabbed the Clinton’s in the back after all the fundraising and political favors. Individuals were rated on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 was considered Hilary’s “SH*T” list.  Interestingly enough, then, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who would succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those who received a “7″. The list also contained, the late and former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.

For Hillary it is all about 2016 and her ambition to be president at all cost.

Hit List

As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”

For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a “favor file.” It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision—including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors—so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.

Their spreadsheet formalized the deep knowledge of those involved in building it. Like so many of the Clinton help, Balderston and Elrod were walking favor files. They remembered nearly every bit of assistance the Clintons had given and every slight made against them. Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons—as if it all had happened just a few hours before. The data project ensured that the acts of the sinners and saints would never be forgotten.


There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).

Yet even a 7 didn’t seem strong enough to quantify the betrayal of some onetime allies.

When the Clintons sat in judgment, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in 2006, as had Obama. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a Meet the Press debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) in October 2006. “He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him. VIDEO”

The book by Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen is called “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.”

UPDATE I: I could not agree more than with Jammie Wearing Fool who says that this jit list most likely goes back decades. Amen brother. An excel spreadsheet? More likely a Tera-byte hard drive of enemies.

Charles Krauthammer Says Hillary Clinton Will Be “Relatively Weak” Presidential Candidate & Republicans Going to Have “a Really Good Shot at the White House”

Krauthammer Says Hillary Clinton Will Be “Relatively Weak” Presidential Candidate …

Yesterday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer has some interesting things to say regarding Hillary Clinton as a Democrat nominee for 2016 and how she would fare in the general election. Much like a recent CNN poll and many others, Krauthammer believes that, should she ran and he believes she will, Hillary Clinton will have a cake walk thru the Democrat primaries. Krauthammer stated that the status that Hillary has with Democrats is semi-devine, the primaries are “not going to be a coronation, it is going to be a worship service.”  And we all know how that worked out with the Obamamessiah. There will be no serious challenger against her in the Democrat primaries. But where Charles differs from many is that he believes that that in the general election … Hillary will be  “a relatively weak opponent. And, Republicans are going to have a really good shot at the White House.”

“I think she’s going to be a rather weak, if she decides to run which she likely is, a relatively weak opponent. And, Republicans are going to have a really good shot at the White House.”

As it is, in a hypothetical match-up between NJ Gov. Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton, Hillary trails. It is not a draw as the Politico headline says, Christie leads 48-46. So even with all the popularity and exposure of a Hillary Clinton without even delving into the real Hillary, she is behind.

Hmm, I am not sure if I would call her a weak candidate; however, I will say that she will be weakened by many factors that did not even exist when she was stunned by Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primaries.

  1. Hillary Clinton is going to have to defend Benghazi and why she did nothing to protect Americans where individuals begged for extra security in the run up to the anniversary of 9-11.
  2. How is the black vote going to rally when Clinton most likely is going to have to distance herself from a toxic Obama?
  3. What accomplishments did she ever do as a US Senator or Secretary of State … Hillary is not Bill Clinton.
  4. How is she a change from the policies of Barack Obama?
  5. Obamacare! … Can you say Hillary Healthcare?
  6. Her husband campaigned and said that no one could have fixed the economy, so why should anyone think Hillary could?
  7. A shift in the electorate against Democrats due to Obama fatigue.
  8. Trying to defend the comments, “What Difference Does it Make!”
  9. Duck Dynasty voters
  10. Did we say Obama and Obama scandal fatigue?

Next Page →

Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

  • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
  • Red (comments)
  • Dugga (technical issues)
  • Dana (radio show comments)
  • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
E-mail It