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!!!
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?
Clinton Foundation acknowledges mistakes after hand caught in the cookie jar …
On Sunday, The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms. Imagine that, after all this time they have admitted mistakes after being caught. Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared this Sunday on ABC’s This Week and on Fox’s Fox News Sunday to discuss the claims in the book of the coincidental Clinton Foundation donations from foreign governments, Bill Clinton’s increased speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and made favorable decisions in regards to those nations.
Looks like some one is admitting wrong-doing. It would appear that Hillary Clinton is trying to do damage control ahead of the release of the Clinton Cash book.
The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally, on Sunday admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms.
In a statement, Pally wrote, “Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year’s form—our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website.”
The statement comes as Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer has been delineating claims in his forthcoming book, which he says shows a pattern in which the Clinton Foundation received donations from foreign governments before the U.S., under Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State, made favorable decisions in regards to those nations. Pally’s statement also acknowledged that those grants were not always properly reported.
“So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future,” the statement says. “We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day.”
Transparency, really? If there was ever a word to never describe Bill and Hillary Clinton it would be transparency. Can you say she scrubbed her private server of all emails she illegally used as Secretary of State to do government business.
With scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation’s financial practices threatening to create political problems for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, the organization on Sunday took the unusual step of acknowledging “mistakes,” but insisted that it is committed to transparency regarding its donors and operations around the world.
Nevertheless, the foundation explained for the first time publicly that one of its affiliates — a Canada-based charity that bears Bill Clinton’s name — would continue to keep its donors secret because of restrictions in Canadian law.
Sunday’s blog post also coincided with national television appearances by conservative author Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” charges that the State Department gave preferential treatment to foundation donors while Clinton was secretary of state and that the foundation violated its own promise to disclose all of its donors.
The Clinton campaign spent much of last week blasting the book as a partisan attack. Still, the Sunday statement was a sign that the growing focus on the $2 billion foundation and its relationship with donors may have begun to rattle Clinton’s team.
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
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.
Mitt Romney Says on Hugh Hewitt Show Regarding Clinton Foundation Uranium Payments … “It Looks Like Bribery”
Mitt Romney says, “It Looks Like Bribery.”
Yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Mitt Romney was asked what his reaction was of the New York Times article report documenting cash flowing from the Russians amid a uranium deal to the Clinton Foundation. Romney, the former 2012 GOP presidential nominee, said that he was stunned and “it looked like bribery”. Romney went on to say that it looks like bribery and a cover up on behalf of Hillary Clinton and had she not wiped out thousands of emails, we might know more.
“You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery.”
“I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.”
“But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.”
It is too bad that Mitt Romney did not go after Barack Obama like he is now Hillary during the 2012 presidential election. Had he done so and kept his foot on Obama’s neck following the 1st Presidential debate instead of coating and playing a prevent defense, he probably would have won.
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton & the Real Russian Reset … Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
CAN YOU SAY OBSCENE CONFLICT OF INTEREST …
UNBELIEVABLE, From the New York Times comes the following connect the dots story that looks way to fishy and convenient of an incestuous relationship between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, The Clinton Foundation and the Russians. How in the hell can Hillary Clinton be trusted to be President of the United States? Forget email and server-gate and Benghazi-gate while she was Secretary of State and all the previous scandals that she was a part of, we need to only look at what she did as Secretary of State and the relationships that can be best be described as suspect. As Red State opines, Bill Clinton sold us to the ChiComs; Hillary sold us to the Russians. And this individual wants to be president. America, wake the hell up.
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Please read the entire article at the NY Times as there is too much incredible stuff in it to do in any justice with block quotes. It is time for America and especially Democrats to say enough is enough. Obviously Democrats are not going to vote for a Republican for president, but if you actually pull the lever for Hillary, you would have sold your soul, as there has never been a more corrupt person running for president that had no business doing so. If these kind of stories of scandals, corruption, influence and conspiracy were about any one else, they would have been politically destroyed. Sorry, but so should Hillary.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Not Categorically Denying Clinton Foundation Donors Received Special Treatment From Sec. of State Hillary Clinton
HMM … OBAMA WHITE HOUSE NOT CATEGORICALLY DENYING CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR AND FORMER SEC. OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON QUID PRO DOUGH SPECIAL TREATMENT …
Why would it be difficult for Barack Obama’s White House press secretary Josh Earnest to say categorically that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not provide special treatment for those who were donors of the Clinton Foundation? One would think that would be a straight forward response of, absolutely not. However, not with the most transparent presidency in history. The Obama White House does not seem to have an answer to the accusations made from the recent book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” otherwise known as Quid Pro Dough.
The new book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer, lays out the case that contributions to the foundation influenced State Department policy from 2009 to 2013, during Clinton’s tenure.
ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl asked Earnest Monday, “Can you say categorically that no donors to the Clinton Foundation – nobody paying any honoraria to former President Clinton – received any favorable treatment from this administration or from the State Department?”
Earnest talked at length about the memorandum of understanding Clinton signed when she joined the Obama administration, saying that it went above and beyond ethical guidelines, given her unique circumstances.
“I know there have been a lot of accusations made about this but not a lot of evidence,” Earnest said. “So, the president continues to be extraordinarily proud of the work Secretary Clinton did as secretary of state. For the details of some of those accusations, I’d refer you to Secretary Clinton’s campaign.”
Karl pressed, “Can you assure us absolutely no favorable treatment given to donors of the Clinton Foundation?”
Earnest repeated, “There are lots of accusations. There is no one who is marshaling the evidence for this. I don’t want to be in a position.”
WHAT A JOKE, NO CONTEMPT CHARGES FOR LOIS LERNER … MORE FROM THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION EVER.
This should come as a shock to no one … President Barack Obama said he was going to have the most transparent and trustworthy administration ever. Of course this is much like a 300 pound man wearing a bowling shirt with the nickname “Slim” on it. And now for the latest in the IRS scandal that saw the IRS purposely and intentionally go after Conservatives and Conservative non-profit groups like the Tea Party ahead of the 2012 elections. Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will not seek criminal charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner over her refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. IMAGINE THAT! The DOJ claims that she did not waive her 5th Amendment privileges when she made a statement of her innocence prior to pleading the 5th because get this … “she made only a general claims of innocence.” SERIOUSLY?
The fix has been in from the outset. We not only have a corrupt government where the fox is guarding the hen house, we have one where the fox also is behind the scandal and in charge of prosecuting any such crimes at the hen house. This country has so lost its way I really am beginning to wonder for the first time in my life whether we will ever be able to get it back.
The Justice Department will not seek criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, the central figure in a scandal that erupted over whether the tax agency improperly targeted conservative political groups.
Ronald Machen, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a seven-page letter this week that he would not bring a criminal case to a grand jury over Lerner’s refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. The House approved a criminal contempt resolution against Lerner in May 2014, and Machen’s office has been reviewing the issue since then.
Machen said the Oversight Committee “followed proper procedures” in telling Lerner that it had “rejected her claim of privilege and gave her an adequate opportunity to answer the Committee’s questions.”
IRS watchdog probing ‘potential criminal activity’ in Lerner email mess.
However, Machen said Justice Department lawyers determined that Lerner “did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by making an opening statement on May 22, 2013, because she made only a general claims of innocence.”
Machen added: “Given that assessment, we have further concluded that it is not appropriate for a United States Attorney to present the matter to the grand jury for action where, as here, the Constitution prevents the witness from being prosecuted for contempt.”
Even Democrats who go against the Obama agenda appear to be on Barack’s enemies list …
New Jersey US Senator Robert Menendez was indicted today with on corruption charges in that he used his office to help advance the business interests of a longtime friend and political supporter in exchange for luxury gifts, vacations and campaign donations.? In total, Menendez faces a 14-count indictment consisting of 1 count of conspiracy, 1 count of violating the travel act, 7 counts of bribery, 3 counts of honest services fraud, and 1 count of making false statements. Menendez has denied any wrongdoing and vows to fight the charges, stating that he will be vindicated. While he will not leave office, Menendez will step aside from his position as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee as he fights the charges.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was indicted on federal corruption charges Wednesday, accused of using the influence of his office to advance the business interests of a longtime friend and political supporter in exchange for luxury gifts, lavish vacations and more than $750,000 in campaign donations.?
Federal prosecutors laid out the charges in a 14-count indictment charging Menendez with using his office to help Salomon Melgen, a Florida-based eye doctor with whom Menendez had maintained a long personal and political friendship. Menendez intervened on Melgen’s behalf in at least two disputes, one with federal regulators over Medicare charges and the other involving a bid by Melgen to secure a port security contract in the Dominican Republic, according to the indictment.
Prosecutors say that over a seven-year period, Menendez relied on Melgen for free private jets to weekend getaways at resorts in Florida, the Dominican Republic and Paris.
Menendez has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. He was defiant Wednesday night before a boisterous crowd of supporters, saying that Melgen’s gifts were a result of friendship dating to the early 1990s and not in exchange for political favors.
Just curious, how much of the DOJ’s investigation and indictments against Menendez have to do with political wrongdoing and how much has to do with the fact that he has been a political thorn in Obama’s side? The Democrat Senator has been extremely vocal against Obama’s policy in Cuba and with Iran. Obama probably did not appreciate it when Mendeez said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in January 2015, “the More I hear from the Obama administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.” As much as I am not a big fan of Robert Menendez, his words have proved to be profound as we witness Obama’s disastrous nuclear plan with Iran.
Judge Jeanine Pirro: We Need a Woman President, But Not this Woman … Does Hillary Clinton Have The Integrity To Be President?
THE ANSWER IS NO …
Judge Jeanine Pirro slammed Hillary Clinton in her opening monologue on ‘Justice with Judge Jeanine’ stating, “As much as I want a woman president … But not this woman.” Judge Jeanine Pirro ripped Hillary Clinton for not having the integrity to be president of the United States. Hillary Clinton does not have what it takes to protect America and our Constitution, she is only concerned with covering her behind and protecting herself. The rules have never applied to Hillary. How could anyone think that she is what America needs after 8 years of Obama?
“As much as I want a woman president, the latest news of deleting emails and keeping communications with her highest level staff outside of government servers, ignoring it until it became clear it wasn’t going away, tells me that Hillary Clinton is not about transparency and is not about integrity,” Judge Jeanine stated.
My personal opinion is, if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2016, this country is finished. It is bad enough that presidents do unethical things and lie while in office. But to knowingly elect Hillary Clinton, an individual who has a past of lies, unethical behavior and hiding things from the American people would mean this country does not care anyone. It would mean, as long as you are the first of anything, like Barack Obama being the first black president or Hillary, the first female president, everything else that makes up someone being an ethical and qualified candidate does not matter. Or as Hillary would say about her past and lack of qualifications … what different does it make.
Alright, so she used her private email and she communicated with her top level staff through their private emails. Who cares? Will this impact your decision on whether to vote for Hillary Clinton for president?
Of course not. You won’t even remember this kerfuffle next year. But the question is much deeper than that. The question becomes: does Hillary Clinton have the integrity to be the President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world? Does Hillary Clinton have the instincts to protect us, someone other than herself?
And as much as I want a woman president, the latest news of deleting emails and keeping communications with her highest level staff outside of government servers, ignoring it until it became clear it wasn’t going away, tells me that Hillary Clinton is not about transparency and is not about integrity, that she does whatever she wants regardless of the rules.
And nobody knows scandal or loopholes better than this woman who has danced with special prosecutors, federal investigators and subpoenas for most of her professional career. It’s simply part of her history.
Now Congressman Trey Gowdy, head of the Benghazi Committee, wants to give her the benefit of the doubt, saying but “it wouldn’t be reasonable for her to be on her way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy and there are no emails from the trip.”
And I’m going to shock you tonight, in spite of my law enforcement background, to me this email investigation is almost irrelevant.
Hillary Clinton knows exactly what she’s doing. What matters to her is making history by becoming the first woman president. The rules simply don’t apply to her.
AMERICANS NAME GOVERNMENT THE #1 PROBLEM FACING THE UNITED STATES …
Americans are fed up with the increasing and oppressive government. In a recent Gallup poll, Americans named the government as the biggest problem facing the United States. For the past 4 months, the government has been named the biggest problem facing “We the People”. They are correct. Even with such issues as terrorism, healthcare, race relations and immigration are extremely important problems facing Americans, the government, the economy and unemployment have been at the top of the list for the past year. In the end, it is our lawless government that refuses to follow the US Constitution, our government that fails to adequately deal with border security, our government that makes the Middle East worse, our government that continually regulates us in a way that our Founding Fathers never intended and our government that spies on us and treats law-abiding, legal US citizens as a greater threat than terrorists.
Americans have grown weary of a government that could care less about the people and only about their power. Every day we are witness to a Democrat president who shreds the Constitution and a gutless Republican Congress who is too cowardice to defend it.
The government is America’s most important problem, according to a new poll.
In a Gallup poll released Thursday, 18 percent of Americans named government as the biggest problem facing the U.S.
The economy trailed closely behind as an important problem with 11 percent, followed by “unemployment/jobs” at 10 percent.
The poll shows a slight increase in those who are dissatisfied with government. In February, 17 percent answered that the government is the most important problem. Americans also seem to be optimistic about the economy. Last month, 16 percent of Americans said that the economy was the most important problem — nearly tying with government. That figure is now down 5 percentage points.
Americans’ confidence in all three branches of government is at or near record lows, according to a major survey that has measured attitudes on the subject for 40 years.
The 2014 General Social Survey finds only 23 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court, 11 percent in the executive branch and 5 percent in Congress. By contrast, half have a great deal of confidence in the military.
As Ronald Reagen profoundly stated so many years ago, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”
Ronald Reagan also said so many years ago, “We are a nation that has a government. Our government has no power except for that granted by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.” WAKE UP AMERICA!!!