- Now Donald Trump is using it against Hillary, but will it make any difference? After all, Bill Clinton is not running!
Daily Commentary – Tuesday, May 24, 2016 Download
Donald Trump Slams Hillary Clinton as ‘Nasty, Mean Enabler’ of Her Husband Bill Clinton’s Affairs … Calls Warren Goofy
IF THE SHOE FITS HILLARY, AND IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES … WEAR IT!!!
At a rally Friday night in Eugene, Oregon Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a ‘Nasty, Mean Enabler’ of her husband Bill Clinton’s affairs. Guess what America, she is. What else would you call it when a wife of a serial philanderer, and worse, went after and attacked the women who Bill Clinton had affairs with and worse? Who finds it completely hypocritical and a complete double standard that Hillary Clinton claims she is the champion of women when it was her very own actions, and lack there of, that enabled her husband, Slick Willy, to repeatedly have affairs. So why did Hillary attack her fellow women when she knew damn well that Bill Clinton was having affairs? Political ambition of course.
An unrestrained Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton an “unbelievably nasty, mean enabler” who “destroyed” the lives of her husband’s mistresses during a rally in Oregon on Friday night.
The comments, made during an evening rally in Eugene, Ore., marked the sharpest tone he’s taken against the Democratic frontrunner since becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, and the first time he’s been so direct in referencing Bill Clinton’s affairs in months.
“She’s been the total enabler. She would go after these women and destroy their lives,” Trump said. “She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful.”
Its been the story of Hillary Clinton’s life … lie, defend, enable and throw people under the bus, including many women, who get in Hillary’s way so that she can maintain her political ambition of becoming president. For Hillary, the ends justify the means and if it means throwing women under the bus and going after them, even though she knew the truth, so be it. Yup, there you have it … quite the champion of women, ain’t she?
“I literally from the time I met her 45 years ago ‘til we talked yesterday, she is the best change-maker I have ever known. She always finds a way to make something good happen, to make people feel empowered, to buy people into the process, to make democracy work the way the framers intended for it to work.
Now, if you don’t believe we can all grow together again, if you don’t believe we’re ever going to grow again, if you believe it’s more important to re-litigate the past, there may be many reasons that you don’t want to support her.
But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her because she’s the only person who basically had good ideas will tell you how she’s going to pay for them, can be commander in chief and is a proven change maker with republicans and democrats and independents alike.”
An update from TEAM Clinton reveals that Bill Clinton meant that the legacy he was referring to was Republicans’ obstructionism. Really? Sorry, but Obama and the Republicans were part of that awful 8 years. You cant have one without the other. Also, as the Washington Examiner reminds us, this is the second time this month that Bill Clinton has slammed President Obama’s economy, the latest a junking of his whole seven-plus years in office as an “awful legacy. Nice spin Slick Willie, but we know exactly what you meant.
Bill Clinton Downplays Barack Obama As First Black President: “We Are All Mixed Race People” (VIDEO) … “You Don’t have a President [Obama] who’s a Change-Maker”
C’mon, we all know that Bill Clinton was the first black president …
Hmm, is Bill Clinton trying to lose the back vote for Hillary? While campaigning in Tennessee Bill Clinton seemed to downplay that Barack Obama was the first black president when he said that unless you are “100 percent, 100 percent from sub-Saharan Africa, we are all mixed race people.” It begs the question that I have wondered for a long, long time. Does Bill Clinton really want Hillary Clinton to be president and force him to be the first, First Man?
Playing off Congressman Steve Cohen’s introduction that claimed Bill Clinton was just a “stand-in for the first black president,” Clinton told an audience in Memphis, “You know what we learned from the human genome?
“We learned that unless your ancestors — everyone of you — are 100 percent, 100 percent from sub-Saharan Africa, we are all mixed race people.”
Hmm, Hasn’t Hillary Clinton been running on the mantra that she we be a third term of Barack Obama? I guess Bubba didn’t get that memo from Hillary’s private email server.
Hundreds packed into the Whitehaven High School gymnasium Thursday to hear former President Bill Clinton stump for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton, a giant state flag behind him, spoke largely on issues that plague Memphis, including high unemployment, violent crime and poverty, and said Hillary would help America “grow together.”
“Without an economy that works for everybody, we can’t be one America, and we can’t go forward together,” Clinton said.
But in talking about the struggles of middle- and lower-class America, Clinton said the country’s financial system is “rigged.”
“Yeah, it’s rigged, because you don’t have a president who’s a change-maker, who, with a Congress who will work with him. But the president has done a better job than he has gotten credit for.”
Donald Trump Says .. It Would Be Interesting To Ask Bill Clinton The Difference Between Him And Bill Cosby
HMM, SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
In an interview on Monday with Howie Carr, Donald Trump says it would be “very interesting” to ask Bill Clinton how he was different from Bill Cosby. One actually has to ask the question, what is the difference? One also has to ask the question as to why Hillary Clinton has run cover for Bubba and his sexual scandals. As the NY Post reports, the Clinton’s are in denial about Bill’s sex scandals. Actually, so is the liberal MSM, the Democrat party and those that would vote for Hillary and believing she is some champion of women.
Listen to the interview HERE.
Donald Trump says it would be “very interesting” to ask Bill Clinton how he was different from Bill Cosby.
Asked on the Howie Carr Show on Monday if there is a difference between Clinton and Cosby, Trump said, “Well, the Cosby thing is a weird deal and he’s got himself some big problems, and you almost have to ask Bill Clinton that question. It would be a very interesting question to some day ask him. Certainly he has a lot of strong charges against him and it’s pretty bad stuff. And it only got brought up because she said I have sexist tendencies. And I respect women so much and I’ll protect women and I’ll protect them and I’ll protect the whole country.”
Criminal charges were filed against the comedian last week for the first time over an alleged 2004 sexual assault. Cosby has been accused of sexual assault by more than 40 women over the years.
HOW COULD HILLARY CLINTON EVER BE FOR WOMAN’S RIGHT MARRIED TO BILL CLINTON?
Once again Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton has some baggage to deal with from her past in order to become president of the United States. The baggage is her husband, Bill Clinton. Speaking to weekend talk radio host Aaron Klein, Paula Jones slammed Hillary as a “two-faced” “liar” who waged a war on women by trying to discredit “predator” Bill’s sexual accusers. You remember Paula Jones, Paula Corbin Jones is a former Arkansas state employee who sued U.S. President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. President Bubba Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with Paula Jones yesterday, agreeing to pay her $850,000.
How could Hillary possibly say with a straight face she is for the protection of woman when she backed and ran cover for her husband Bubba Clinton for years?
During a radio interview on Sunday, Paula Jones, the former Arkansas state employee who notoriously sued President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, demanded Hillary Clinton personally apologize for “allowing” her husband to “abuse” and “sexually harass” women.
Speaking to weekend talk radio host Aaron Klein, Jones slammed Hillary as a “two-faced” “liar” who waged a war on women by trying to discredit “predator” Bill’s sexual accusers.
“And how dare her. You know what? She don’t care nothing about women. Because if she did she would believe what I had to say. She would believe what the other women had to say. ”
Jones further accused the media of practicing a double standard by “protecting” the Clintons while deservedly scrutinizing Bill Cosby’s alleged sexual assaults.
Stated Jones: “It’s really a sad, sad day if Hillary becomes president, because she has allowed her husband to get by with this type of stuff. Why does he have a right to be back in the White House, the people’s house?
“Why is he allowed to be back there with the track record that he has and his wife and the lying that she does and how she tried to discredit all of these women that her husband abused and sexually harassed?”
Jones slammed Hillary as “such a liar. And she’s so two faced. I never once was contacted by her. Not one time and apologized about what her husband did to me.”
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
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 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.