Bill Clinton's fundraising
activities at the Clinton Foundation raise serious questions -- questions that
only a special prosecutor can answer. (AP)
Hillary Clinton says if she wins the presidency, it might be a good idea for
former President Clinton to cut his ties to the Clinton Family Foundation. Good
idea? A new IBD/TIPP Poll suggests that average Americans are way ahead of her
on this issue.
"I don't think there are
conflicts of interest" with having former Bill Clinton run a foundation
that raises money around the world during her campaign, Hillary Clinton said in
an interview with ABC News on
Tuesday. Americans, it seem, would disagree.
Average people have a far less
benign view of what's gone on at the Clinton Foundation. And it looms as a
major problem for Clinton as she pursues the presidency.
In our latest IBD/TIPP Poll, taken
the week of Aug. 26 to Sept. 1, shows that Americans are increasingly wary of
the Clinton Foundation's questionable practices, which IBD has written about
extensively. The poll of 934 adults has a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percentage
The ups and downs of the
Clinton Foundation, it turns out, are of big interest to average Americans.
Some 72% in the IBD/TIPP Poll said they are following it.
Perhaps more significantly, of
the 72% who are following it, three-fourths — or 77% -- believe that donors to
the Clinton Foundation received special access and favors from the State
Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
And there is, surprisingly,
bipartisan agreement on this: Some 55% of Democrats agree that the Clintons
used public office to dispense favors to their foundation's friends.
Yet, those investigating both
the Clinton email
scandal and the related questions about the Clinton Foundation
have been met with hostility by Clinton partisans.
FBI Director James Comey, who
all but indicted Hillary with his words when he announced he would not
prosecute her, this week even had to defend his decision to release more
documents from his investigation.
For the record, his
investigation — and subsequent testimony to Congress — found that Hillary lied
repeatedly about her home-brew email server and about sending and receiving
classified information on it. All of these are crimes.
But even bigger questions are
now being raised about the cozy ties between the Clinton Foundation and
Hillary's State Department. Though she promised an arms-length relationship to
the foundation when she was first named secretary of state, at least 181
Clinton Foundation donors — companies, individuals, even countries — lobbied
the State Department during her years there.
It strongly suggests a
quid-pro-quo relationship, given that the State Department can act as a favor-giver
and gatekeeper for business deals and other lucrative arrangements around the
It reeks of a corrupt pay-to-play system based on a major conflict of
interest, in which Hillary Clinton was ideally positioned to grant government
favors to those who had already enriched her, her husband Bill and her
daughter, Chelsea, by giving boatloads of money to the eponymous family
Charles Ortel, a highly
regarded Wall Street financial expert, took a look at the Clinton Foundation's
books over the last year or so and this week published his partial conclusion:
"To informed analysts, the Clinton
Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that
has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997
to date ... it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth
Based on what appears to be
repeated violations of the law and a shocking disregard for the minimal ethics
requirements of government officials, it's time for a special prosecutor of
Hillary Clinton to look into both the family foundation and the emails.
Our polling shows Americans
would definitely support such a move, either before or after the election.
According to IBD/TIPP, nearly two-thirds (63%) think a special prosecutor
should be appointed. And 88% of Republicans and 68% of Independents want a
special prosecutor to look into the possible misconduct. The sentiment that
something wrong has taken place is overwhelming.
To save the nation from another
failed presidency, it's time to put this issue to rest by naming a special
analysis of the debate that Trump won comes from Frank I. Luntz, an American
political consultant, pollster, and “public opinion guru” best known for his
focus groups during the past few debates.
is clear Donald Trump came out on top. When Hillary Clinton was questioned
about the Clinton Foundation money laundering she ignored it. Usually that’s a
sign of someone lying and trying to avoid the subject. Donald Trump’s strong
points were trade and fixing a corrupt system.
Hillary Clinton Supporters Like Donald Trump’s Stance On
When Donald Trump spoke about Hillary Clinton’s failures,
even her own supporters sided with Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton’s answer on the Clinton Foundation was a
Voters liked when Donald Trump held the State Department
Voters Liked Donald Trump’s Response to NAFTA and TPP.
When Hillary Clinton started blaming Russia, the voters
didn’t like it.
In the second video of James O'Keefe's new explosive series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale. Scott Foval, who has since been fired, admits that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.
Operative Unwittingly Provides Dark Money Trail to the DNC and Clinton Campaign
Violence at Trump
Rallies Traced to Clinton Campaign and the DNC Through Process Called
Communications Chain Between DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC
and Other Organizations Revealed
Operative: “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we
need to win this motherfucker”
Action has just released the first video in a multi-part series which exposes
the dark secrets at the highest levels of the DNC and Clinton presidential
campaign. Using hidden cameras, undercover journalists reveal key players
coordinating clandestine operations in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The video, supported by emails recently released by WikiLeaks, shows that the
dirty tricks, lines of communications and the money trail lead all the way to
The video discloses
numerous examples of behind-the-scenes shady practices with consequences most
Americans have seen on national television at Donald Trump campaign rallies
across the country. What the media hasn’t reported is that the Clinton campaign
and Democratic National Committee has been directing these activities with, at
very best, a very thin veil of plausible deniability. This series of videos is
the culmination of a year-long investigation by the undercover journalists at
Project Veritas Action.
Scott Foval is the
National Field Director for a non-profit organization named Americans United
for Change. In the video, he told an undercover investigator that they contract
“directly with the DNC and the [Clinton] campaign both.”
“I am contracted to
him [Bob Creamer],” says Foval to an undercover reporter. “But I answer to the
head of Special Events for the DNC and the head of special events and political
for the campaign.”
campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the
Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the shit…” continued Foval.
“Democracy Partners is the tip of the spear on that stuff.”
Bob Creamer founded
and is listed as a partner on the website of the Democratic consulting firm
Democracy Partners. He is the husband of Jan Shakowsky, a congresswoman from
Chicago. In 2005, he plead guilty to tax violations and bank fraud.
“Wherever Trump and
Pence are going to be, we have events and we have a whole team across the
country that does that both consultants and people from the Democratic Party,”
Creamer told an investigator. “And the Democratic Party apparatus and the
people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign and my role with the campaign,
is to manage all that.”
investigation reveals compelling evidence of a dark money conspiracy and likely
violations of federal campaign coordination laws by the Hillary Clinton campaign,
Clinton’s Super PAC Priorities USA and the Democratic National Committee.
“The thing that we have to
watch, is making sure there is a double blind between the actual campaign and
the actual DNC and what we’re doing,” states Foval while conduit of information between the DNC, Clinton
campaign, Political Action Committees, the AFL-CIO and other organizations.
“There’s a double blind there. So they can plausibly deny that they knew
anything about it.”
Foval explains, “The
campaigns and DNC cannot go near Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the
people who run the Super PACs all talk to each other and we and a few other
people are the hubs of that communication.”
“I just had a call with
the campaign and the DNC, every day at one o’clock,” says Creamer subordinate
When discussing what
sorts of dirty tricks Foval, Creamer and others manage at the bequest of the
DNC and Clinton campaign, a Project Veritas Action investigator asks Foval if
he would recognize Foval’s work.
“Oh, I know you do,”
responds Foval. “Everybody does.”
“You remember the
Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s
hand and then the dude kind of gets roughed up right in front of the stage
right there on camera?” Foval asks. “That was all us. The guy that got roughed
up is my counterpart who works for Bob.”
Foval adds that they
“planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make
sure there wasn’t just an accident happen up front, there was also a reaction
that happened out back.”
Foval also references
Shirley Teeter, a sixty-nine-year-old lady who claims that she was assaulted at
a Trump rally in North Carolina.
“She was one of our
activists,” he says while introducing the term bird dogging to the
The phrasebird doggingr also
appears inan emailreleased
by WikiLeaks where Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook suggests it might be a
tactic to employ to shore up support with Hispanic voters.
“So the term bird
dogging, you put people in the line, at the front which means that they have to
get there at six in the morning because they have to get in front at the rally,
so that when Trump comes down the rope line, they’re the ones asking him the
question in front of the reporter, because they’re pre-placed there,” explains
Foval. “To funnel that kind of operation, you have to start back with people
two weeks ahead of time and train them how to ask questions. You have to
train them to bird dog.”
“I’m basically deputy
rapid response director for the DNC for all things Trump on the ground,” says a new character in the undercover
This character says
his name is Aaron Black, but it is ireally Aaron Minter. “Yeah, and nobody
is really supposed to know about me.”
In the hidden camera
video, Black shares credit with Creamer for the Chicago Trump rally which was
“So the Chicago
protest when they shut all that, that was us,” says Black/Minter. “It was more
him [Bob Creamer] than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us,
because we want it coming from people, we don’t want it to come from the
party. So if we do a protest and it’s a DNC protest, right away the press
is going to say partisan. But if I’m in there coordinating with all the
troops on the ground and sort of playing the field general but they are the
ones talking to the cameras, then it’s actually people. But if we send
out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton campaign it just doesn’t have
that same effect.”
“So B and I did the
Chicago Trump event where we shut down, like all the yeah…” confirms Rodriguez,
who also admitted to shutting down the highway at a Trump event in Arizona.
“I’m saying we have
mentally ill people, that we pay to do shit, make no mistake,” says Foval in
the video. “Over the last twenty years, I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do
some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made sure
they had a hotel, and a shower. And I put them in a program. Like
I’ve done that. But the reality is, a lot of people especially our union
guys. A lot of our union guys…they’ll do whatever you want. They’re
rock and roll. When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I
call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, ‘What do you
need?’ And I will say, I need a guy who will do this, this and
this. And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, Hell yeah,
let’s do it.”
“Tomorrow we release
our next installment of this investigation where we expose a voter fraud scheme
discussed at the highest levels. The Hillary Clinton campaign is leaving
nothing to chance as we have seen and will continue reveal as our undercover
investigation into the dark machine of the Hillary Clinton campaign continues,”
says Project Veritas Action President James O’Keefe. “Hillary, check your
Action was founded by James O’Keefe to investigate and expose corruption,
dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud and other misconduct.
INC: A dozen companies that lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department not only
showered millions on the Clinton Foundation, they employed lobbyists who were
fundraisers for Clinton’s campaigns.
The nexus among
private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family
foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so
While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave
money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key
parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same
companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major
Clinton campaign fundraisers.
Those companies gave as much as $16 million to
the Clinton charities.
At least four of the lobbyists they hired are
“Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised
$100,000 or more for her current White House race.
Two of the four also raised
funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
If elected, Clinton
would be the first U.S. president to have had previous involvement with a
foundation that raised millions of dollars tied to foreign interests and other
donors, said Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University.
FBI documents allege that a top State Department official with close ties to
Hillary Clinton offered agents a “quid pro quo” in order to hide the true
extent of her exposure of classified information.
A top State
Department official allegedly “pressured” the FBI to downgrade the
classification of one of Hillary Clinton’s emails as part of a “quid pro quo,”
according to documents released by the bureau on Monday.
The accusation of such
an arrangement came from an interview the FBI conducted with an official in its
records management division.
Notes from the interview were released as part of
the FBI’s public posting of documents related to its now-closed investigation into
Clinton’s use of a private email server.
In the interview, the unnamed official
says that Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, tried in
late June or early July of last year to get the FBI to change a classified
email to unclassified, in exchange for the State Department allowing the FBI to
place agents in more countries.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus blasted the quid pro quo revelations.
Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus on Monday accused the Obama
administration of deliberately keeping Hillary Clinton from being held
accountable for her handling of classified information while secretary of
“It is deeply troubling that a top State Department official close to
Hillary Clinton offered the FBI a ‘quid pro quo’ to hide the full extent to
which she mishandled classified information,” Priebus said in a statement.
Reports emerged earlier Monday that a State Department official pressured the
FBI to change the top secret classification of an email from Clinton's private
server because it “caused problems.”
A former diplomatic security agent told the FBI that Hillary Clinton
"blatantly disregarded" security protocols while serving as secretary
The revelation came in a 100-page collection of notes released Monday
from the FBI's year-long investigation of Clinton's server.
staff members also expressed their view that "Clinton was using her
position as secretary of state to campaign for President of the United
According to the diplomatic security agent, whose name was
redacted, Clinton flouted diplomatic standards by refusing to ride in an
armored limosine with U.S. ambassadors while traveling abroad, instead choosing
to ride only with longtime aide Huma Abedin. "This frequently resulted in
complaints from ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of
protocol," the FBI notes said.
agents are growing frustrated with Director Comey’s leadership following the
bureau’s decision not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton or
any of her top aides.
FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey’s
decision to not suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton
over her mishandling of classified information.
According to an interview
transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to
two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by
“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have
been convened, but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has
worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk
about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”
“Remember, it’s a rigged system. It’s a rigged election,”
said Donald Trump in New Hampshire on Saturday.
The stunned recoil in this city suggests this bunker
buster went right down the chimney. As the French put it, “Il n’y a que la
verite qui blesse.” It is only the truth that hurts.
In what sense is the system rigged?
Consider Big Media — the elite columnists and
commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks,
save FOX. Not in this writer’s lifetime has there been such blanket hatred and
hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party.
“So what?” They reply. “We have a free press!”
But in this election, Big Media have burst out of the
closet as an adjunct of the regime and the attack arm of the Clinton campaign,
aiming to bring Trump down.
Half a century ago, Theodore White wrote of the power and
bias of the “adversary press” that sought to bring down Richard Nixon.
“The power of the press in America,” wrote Teddy, “is a
primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping
power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk about and
think about — an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants,
priests, parties and mandarins.”
On ABC’s “This Week,” Newt Gingrich volunteered on Sunday
that, “without the unending one-sided assault of the news media, Trump would be
beating Hillary by 15 points.”
On this one, Newt is right.
With all due respect, as adversaries, Harry Reid and
Nancy Pelosi are not terribly formidable. Big Media is the power that sustains
the forces of globalism against those of Americanism.
Is the system rigged? Ask yourself.
For half a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has
systematically de-Christianized and paganized American society and declared
abortion and homosexual marriage constitutional rights.
Where did these unelected jurists get the right to impose
their views and values upon us, and remake America in their own secularist
image? Was that really the Court’s role in the Constitution?
How did we wind up with an all-powerful judicial tyranny
in a nation the Founding Fathers created as a democratic republic?
There are more than 11 million illegal immigrants here,
with millions more coming. Yet the government consistently refuses to enforce
the immigration laws of the United States.
Why should those Americans whose ancestors created,
fought, bled and died to preserve America not believe they and their children
are being dispossessed of a country that was their patrimony — and without
When did the country vote to convert the America we grew
up in into the Third World country our descendants will inherit in 2042?
In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a Congressional majority
voted to end discrimination against black folks.
When did we vote to institute pervasive discrimination
against white folks, especially white males, with affirmative action, quotas
and racial set-asides? Even in blue states like California, affirmative action
is routinely rejected in statewide ballots.
Yet it remains regime policy, embedded in the
In 2015, in the Democratic primaries, the big
enthusiastic crowds were all for 75-year-old Socialist senator Bernie Sanders.
We now know, thanks to leaked emails, that not only the
super delegates and the Obama White House but a collaborationist press and the
DNC were colluding to deny Sanders any chance at the nomination.
The fix was in. Ask Sanders if he thinks the system is
If there is an issue upon which Americans agree, it is
that they want secure borders and an end to trade policies that have shipped
abroad the jobs, and arrested the wages, of working Americans.
Yet in a private speech that netted her $225,000 from
Brazilian bankers, Hillary Clinton confided that she dreams of a “common
market, with open trade and open borders” from Nome, Alaska, to Patagonia.
That would mean the end of the USA as a unique, sovereign
and independent nation. But the American press, whose survival depends upon the
big ad dollars of transnational corporations, is more interested in old tapes
of the Donald on The Howard Stern Show.
As present, it appears that in 2017, we may get a
government headed by Hillary Clinton, and an opposition headed by Paul Ryan and
Is that what the people were hoping for, working for,
voting for in the primaries of 2016? Or is this what they were voting against?
Big money and the media power of the establishment elites
and the transnationals may well prevail.
And if they do, Middle America — those who cling to their
bibles, bigotries and guns in Barack Obama’s depiction, those “deplorables” who
are “racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic,” who are “not America” and are
“irredeemable” in Hillary Clinton’s depiction — will have to accept the new
But that does not mean they must love it, like it or
Because, in the last analysis, yes, Virginia, the system