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.
- Retired Air Force Col. Timothy Milbrath and former aide to three US Presidents is under investigation for allegedly bilking investors out of millions of dollars
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Download
Artist Nelson Shanks Says He Included a Shadow of a Blue Dress in Former Presidents Bill Clinton’s 2006 Portrait … Metaphor that Represents a Shadow on the Office He Held, or on Hiim
Monica Lewinsk’s blue dress strikes again …
Hmm, seems that the official presidential portrait of for President William Jefferson Clinton has a cryptically image in it. According to the artist, Nelson Shanks, the painting has a shadow at the left hand side of it that literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin. OMG, too funny. All these years and no one ever questioned it? The artist stated that the shadow is a metaphor “in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.” If that’s the case, with regards to a shadow of scandal and a metaphor, then Barack Obama’s official portrait, with the shadow of lies and scandals might look like Spinal Tap’s album cover.
I am no art expert, but who finds this official airport somewhat lacking? Maybe Clinton should have been holding the blue dress, or a cigar in his hand? Remember when this portrait first came out, the uproar was that Clinton was not wearing a wedding ring. Looks like the artist compensated with other things.
An artist who painted a portrait of former President Bill Clinton says there’s more to the piece than one might see at first blush.
Pennsylvania artist Nelson Shanks told the Philadelphia Daily News that he included a shadow of a blue dress in the 2006 portrait, which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. It’s an apparent reference to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, with Shanks adding that the 42nd president is “probably the most famous liar of all time.”
“If you look at the left-hand side of it,” there’s a mantel in the Oval Office and “I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things,” the painter said.
“It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.”
SNL … ‘MLK’ Learns What’s Going on in America Today and He’s Not Happy About It … “I Guess We’re Still Climbing That Mountain.”
SNL did a skit over the weekend with the ghost of Martin Luther King Jr. visiting a boy who needed to do a report on the Civil Rights leader.
When the boy informed MLK, played by Kenan Thompson, he was not all that impressed with the state of affairs in America. When told that the US elected its first black president, Barack Obama, MLK respoded, you said Barack O-what now … sounds like a Kenyan Muslim. Hmm, I guess it would have sounded more like one if student, Pete Davidson, had said his full name, Barack Hussein Obama.
Throughout the skit, MLK kept saying … “I guess we’re still climbing that mountain”.
I guess it would have been asking too much on liberal SNL to say that it was really race hustler Al Sharpton leading the civil rights movement and instead of protesting over the deaths of those like 14 year old Emmett Till, whose only crime was talking to a married, 21 year old white woman in 1955 Money Mississippi, today’s civil right movement was all about protesting the death of a black a punk at the hands of a white police officer, who committed a strong arm robbery of a store and then assaulted a police officer trying to take his gun. Yea, I get the two confused myself.
Also, not being told to the ghost of MLK was the division caused by the first elected black president, Barack Obama. Also absent was any reference that black Americans have been worse off under Obama. And I wonder why SNL excluded the fact that Americans believe that race relations are worse under the first elected black president? From the Civil Rights icon who famously made the following statement, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” would say about Barack Obama who used skin color and appearances in interjecting himself in the Trayvon Martin case, ‘If I Had A Son, He’d Look Like Trayvon.’
The ghost of “Martin Luther King Jr.,” played by Kenan Thompson, paid a visit to a boy trying to write a school paper on the upcoming holiday during this week’s “Saturday Night Live.”
But it was ‘MLK,’ not the kid, who wound up learning a lot during the sketch — and he didn’t like most of what he learned.
When he hears that the first black president is named Barack Obama, ‘MLK’ blurts out, “Barack O-what now? He sounds like a Kenyan Muslim!”
“MLK” gets hit with a slew of downer news — the boulevards that bear his name aren’t in the nicest neighborhoods, “Selma” got snubbed for Oscar consideration, and Macklemore, “like, the whitest dude ever,” is the face of American hip-hop.
“We’re still climbing that mountain,” “MLK” says sadly.
Pew Research/USA Today Poll: African Americans Think Race Relations Have Gotten Worse Since 2009 Under Barack Obama
WHO DIDN’T SEE THIS COMING FROM A COMMUNITY AGITATOR …
Wasn’t the election of Barack Obama supposed to make everything better in the United States, including race relation? Wasn’t the election of the first black president supposed to bridge the divide between races? Well a recent Pew Research/USA Today poll says, not so much, especially among blacks. The poll shows that blacks have a 64% positive view of relations between the races, down 12 points from 76% in 2009. Hmm, I guess an Obama administration of perpetual dividing and race baiting would do that.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center and USA TODAY, conducted August 20 -24 among 1, 501 adults, finds that overall perceptions of relations between blacks and
whites are only modestly changed from five years ago.
Currently, 69% of the public, including majorities of both whites (75%) and blacks (64%), say blacks and whites in this country get along “very well” or “pretty well.” Since
2009, the share of blacks with a positive view of relations between the races has fallen 12 points (from 76% to 64%) while remaining largely unchanged among whites (80% in 2009).
Full poll can be read HERE.
From the WAPO: Blacks give police lower marks than whites.