Friday, August 28, 2020

MICHELLE OBAMA - 'SYSTEMIC RACISM IS COMING FROM TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ' - BUT WHAT DID THE OBAMA-BIDEN WHITE HOUSE EVER DO FOR BLACK AMERICA???

 

IF THERE IS SO MUCH 'SYSTEMIC RACISM' THEN HOW DID BARACK OBAMA GET ELECTED, OPRAH BECOME A BILLIONAIRE AND MICHELLE OBAMA, WHO WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO GET INTO ANY LAW SCHOOL, BE ADMITTED TO HARVARD LAW???


The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.

Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/malia_michelle_barack_and_the_college_admissions_scandal.html

 

By Jack Cashill

What shocked even the old timers in my hometown was that Mayor Hugh Addonizio, the man who gave me my Eagle Scout Award, would accept kickbacks in cash right across his desk. They were troubled less by his criminality -- that was expected in Newark -- than by his lack of subtlety. Addonizio paid for his indiscretion with a lengthy prison sentence.

So it is with the current college admissions scandal. People have been scamming their ways into prestige universities for decades, maybe centuries, but in the past they have had the good sense not to put the cash on the table. It seems that in this scandal a few of the bribers and their brokers may well pay for their indiscretion with prison sentences as well.

The media pretend to be shocked. In an editorial on the scandal, the New YorkTimes singled out Harvard University for its “special admissions preferences and back doors for certain applicants.” This is the same New York Times, however, that published an entirely uncritical article three years prior headlined, “Malia Obama Rebels, Sort of, by Choosing Harvard.” 

Malia is the fourth member of the Obama family to attend that august university, none of whom, save perhaps for Grandpa Obama, deserved to be there.

Let’s start with Obama Sr., the only member of the extended family to attend college before the affirmative action/diversity era. Obama arrived at Harvard in the early 1960s with the goal of getting a Ph.D. in economics. According to biographer Sally Jacobs, Obama “struggled” with his studies but managed to get a Masters degree.

Alas, the university booted him on moral grounds before he could get his doctorate. An inveterate playboy despite his two ongoing marriages, Obama had an affair with a high-school girl. Denied his Ph.D., says Jacobs, “He goes on to claim the title, nonetheless. He's Dr. Obama. The older he gets, the more he claims it.” As will be seen, intellectual fraud runs in the family.

Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”

Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.” She did not write well either. Mundy charitably describes her senior thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," as “dense and turgid.”

The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed,  “To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language.” Hitchens exaggerated only a little.  The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:

The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.

Michelle even typed badly.  Still, she was admitted to and graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law.  I have been told by those on the inside that there are ways of recognizing affirmative-action admissions. Still, one almost feels sorry for Michelle.  She was in so far over her head it is no wonder she projected her angst onto the white people around her. “Regardless of the circumstances underwhich [sic] I interact with whites at Princeton,” she wrote in the opening of her thesis, “it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

Barack was the smarter and better educated half of the couple. That said, had Obama’s father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named O’Hara not Obama, there would been no Harvard Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia.

In his overly friendly biography, The Bridge, David Remnick writes that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be unearthed before those are.

How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject Remnick avoids.

Obama does too. Although he has admitted that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs” during his academic career, he has remained mum about some reported “back door” influence peddling that may have been as useful to him as affirmative action.

In late March 2008 the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico Percy Sutton appeared on a local New York City show called "Inside City Hall." When asked about Obama by the show’s host, Dominic Carter, the former Manhattan borough president calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.”

The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.

According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama]... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

Three months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure had publicly announced that an unapologetic anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally anti-Semitic Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years, but the story died a quick and unnatural death.

As for Malia, whose grades and scores are as much a state secret as her father’s, the old man damns with the faint praise of  “capable” and “conscientious.” But hell, Bill’s daughter Chelsea got into Stanford and George’s daughter Barbara got into Yale, so this particular path to the back door was well worn.

Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.

 

Harvard virtue-signals: DoJ brief finds that 45% of its black and Latino admissions got in on race

By Monica Showalter

Imagine being a talented black or Latino applicant who got into Harvard University. Now there's news that 45% of the blacks and Latinos have been found to have been admitted on race over merit, according to a new Justice department brief, which credibly argues that Harvard engaged in illegal "race-balancing."

According to J. Christian Adams at PJMedia:

Almost half of all blacks and Hispanics who attend Harvard were admitted because of illegal racial preferences in admissions according to a brief just filed by the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice filed the brief in a federal lawsuit filed by Students For Fair Admissions. It says Harvard's race-based admissions process violates federal law. 

Every employer is going to be looking at your diploma and wondering if you were part of the 45%.

Which is a pretty nasty burden to throw onto the talented 55% who got in on merit alone. Everywhere they go, they'll be suspected of not being Harvard material but for the color of their skin. Make a mistake at work? It's because of the Harvard affirmative-action advantage. What an ugly thing to have to worry about for the rest of your life, solely because you are black or Latino. It's the typically lefty good intentions and virtue-signaling that in the real world does blacks and Latinos absolutely no favors.

According to the DoJ brief:

The school considers applicants’ race at virtually every step, from rating applicants to winnowing the field of applicants when attempting to avoid an oversubscribed class. And its inclusion of race in the analysis frequently makes a dispositive difference. The district court found that Harvard’s use of race was “determinative” for “approximately 45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” ADD84. Moreover, Harvard meticulously tracks and shapes the racial makeup of its emerging incoming class throughout the process, continuously comparing the new class’s racial composition with that of the previous year. 

The DoJ brief argued that the funnily consistent number of admissions among minorities proved there was some intense "racial balancing" going on, which it notes, is explicitly unconstitutional in a university that takes massive federal funding:

These numbers speak for themselves. The minimal variation, including in the percentages of underrepresented minorities that Harvard seeks to benefit, over a multi-year period is much narrower than the 6.6-percentage-point range in underrepresented minorities the Supreme Court sustained in Grutter.

Asian-Americans, of course, were the ones knocked out on the old subjective 'personality' factor, with Harvard apparently claiming most have bad ones:

 Second, Harvard’s process imposes a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian-American applicants. It does so in part through the subjective personal rating that admissions officers apply with minimal guidance or supervision. That rating produces consistently poorer scores for Asian Americans. Harvard did not prove that the personal rating is race-neutral. 

The DoJ brief notes that the personality rating is a big one in determining who gets admitted - applicants who got 1's and 2's, the highest ratings, were 80% of the incoming class:

With the personal rating excluded, both experts’ models show Harvard’s program inflicts a statistically significant penalty against Asian-American applicants.

So what is there to unpack here? 

Minorities are getting shortchanged on the values of their diplomas, now that news is out that their admission, unlike those of the others, was disproportionately based on race over other more qualified applicants. That's the impact of Harvard's white leadership looking to virtue-signal at the top instead of confront failing black schools and poor cultural outcomes in Great Society-poisoned black and brown cultures.

We see a lot of the effects of this affirmative-action shortchanging in lower-tier schools, which often feature huge dropout rates of minority students who as admitted minorities, cannot keep up with the other kids in the classes.

We don't see that pattern at Harvard - the 2019 statistics show that 99.04% of black students, or, 103 out of 104 graduate (presumably within the 6-year time period noted), and 98.68% of Hispanics -- 150 out of 152 -- do the same. Whites, by contrast, have a 97.6%, or 733/751 rate, and Asians have a 97.73%, or 733/751 rate. Students of mixed race have a 96.19%, or 101 out of 105 graduation rate.

All pretty hunky dory, but it's still possible this may be manipulated to keep the virtue-signal going.

The DoJ charges that racial bean-counting is continuous at Harvard. It's also noteworthy that the school has a gargantuan "diversity" staff -- which needs to somehow keep busy. Might it be that these students are expressly guided to be graduates over other students? That's one possibility. 

Another way the graduation rate can be manipulated is through grade inflation and gut majors. Are these ultra-high black and Latino graduation rates the result of the students taking easy majors? Such as a major that ends in '-studies'? Well, to take one benchmark, about half the student section of Harvard's African-American Studies department, based on appearances, is African or African-American, or about 13 out of 27 students. That would be about 10% of the black student body, a rather disproportionate enrollment. 

The Harvard physics department, by contrast, doesn't feature faces of its students as the African-American Studies department does. The site features a gigantic eight-person committee on 'diversion and inclusivity' though, but no student facebook listings, quite unlike the African-American Studies page. A jaunt to the Harvard 'Women in Physics' section, though, features 22 female faces, nearly all students, it appears, and none apparently African-American or Latina, in the two pictoral line-up photos showing 22 faces and 25 faces. They all appear to be white, South Asian, or East Asian. Since I couldn't find any information about what black and Latino students are majoring in, the photos serve as a suggestion, particularly since the physics page has a 'diversity and inclusion' link that the African American Studies section does not, suggesting the school thinks someone might notice.

But something probably even more significant was brought up by Henry Louis Gates of all people: It's not the ghetto kids getting into Harvard under the checkbox of 'black' - it's the rich and upper middle class black kids -- and the children of African or Caribbean immigrants, who have a significant work ethic and sense of excellence, probably putting a lot of them in the 55%.

The race-balancing going on at Harvard seems to be primarily a subsidy to the rich black and Latino kids who enroll when admitted, as this academic sums up

University of Illinois professor Walter Benn Michaels put the question most bluntly when he said, “When students and faculty activists struggle for cultural diversity, they are in large part battling over what skin color the rich kids have.”

And that does seem to be going on with the Harvard race-balancing, using the richer kids. That is supported by the fact that only 76% of blacks admitted to Harvard actually go to the school. Harvard itself attributes that to the appeal of historically black colleges such as Howard University and full scholarships offered by other ivy league schools. The Journal of Black Higher Education thinks it's black kids going to high-grade selective state schools, which serve their needs better. The admissions committee, it seems, is throwing things at black kids that a lot of them might not really want. Some may see themselves as more successful at Howard University, or U.C. Santa Barbara, and meet more people in the same boat as themselves.

Meanwhile, over at Harvard, a combination of gut majors, grade inflation, and admitting the rich kids with the requisite background to at least minimally sudceed at Harvard seems to be what keeps the Asian-American kid with poor immigrant parents from the Flushing or Jackson Heights neighborhoods in Queens from getting in - which is fundamentally discriminatory, and a nasty surprise to their American dreams. All because of those supposed bad personalities.

The DoJ fundamentally shows how kids of all races are getting shortchanged by Harvard's racial bean counting, which far from serving kids, serves as a sop to the whites who run these programs -- to virtue-signal to other whites. It's nonsense. Racialism by any other name is still racism. The black and Latino kids get shortchanged, and so do the Asians. The case shows that Harvard needs to scrap that whole thing and move to race-blind admissions more than anything else, or else go without federal funding. Better still, they might just start speaking out on why ordinary African-Americans are condemned to such bad union-run schools that keep them from out of the competition at Harvard as richer kids with the same skin color glide right in.

Image credit: Original art by Monica Showalter, shareable Instagram

 

Michelle Obama: ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Coming from the White House

The 54-year-old mother of two -- America's first African American first lady and wife of the first black US president -- is wildly popular at home and abroad, loved for her warm personality, intelligence and women's activism
Jim Young/AFP
2:01

Former first lady Michelle Obama claimed Thursday that so-called “systemic racism” is coming from the Trump White House in the wake of the shooting of Jacob Blake.

“These past few months, I’ve been thinking a lot about what our kids are seeing every day in this country — the lack of empathy, the division stoked in times of crisis, the age-old and systemic racism that’s been so prominent this summer,” said Obama. “Sometimes they see it on the news. Sometimes they see it from the White House Rose Garden. And sometimes they see it from the back seat of a car.”

On Sunday, Blake, a 29-year-old black man, was shot multiple times by Kenosha police when officers responded to a domestic incident. Before being shot, Blake admitted to officers that he had a knife in his possession, which was recovered from the floorboard of his vehicle, the Wisconsin Department of Justice said Wednesday.

Obama’s statement comes after a 17-year-old male was arrested Wednesday in connection to the fatal shooting of two people during a third straight night of riots in Kenosha, sparked by Blake’s shooting.

Kyle Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, about 15 miles from Kenosha, was taken into custody in Illinois on suspicion of first-degree intentional homicide in the attack Tuesday that was largely captured on cellphone video. The shooting left a third person wounded.

“I just killed somebody,” the gunman, carrying a semi-automatic rifle, could be heard saying at one point during the rampage that erupted just before midnight in the city of 100,000 people midway between Milwaukee and Chicago.

In the wake of the killings, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers authorized the deployment of 500 members of the National Guard to Kenosha, doubling the number of troops. The governor’s office said he is working with other states to bring in additional National Guard members and law officers.

The AP contributed to this report. 

HILLARY CLINTON, THE SOCIOPATH LAWYER WHO OPERATES A SCAM CHARITY FAMILY SLUSH FUND SAYS TRUMP SHOULDN'T USE THE WHITE HOUSE

 “Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption.

As awful as this orchestrated campaign against President Trump has been, it is absolutely maddening to realize that none of it would have happened had Hillary Clinton not engaged in one of the greatest pay-for-play operations in American history while placing our most guarded secrets (as well as the very lives of our soldiers and civilians) on a silver platter for those governments and adversaries who wish us the most harm in this world.  Three years of Russian hysteria happened only because of the deep corruption of Hillary Clinton.  J B SHURK


Hillary Clinton: Trump Held ‘Law-Breaking Convention’

In this image from video, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during the third night of the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2020. (Democratic National Convention via AP)
DNC via AP
2:12

Hillary Clinton described the Republican National Convention (RNC) as a “law-breaking convention,” making her accusation via her verified profiles on Instagram and Twitter. She did not identify any laws that were allegedly broken by the RNC’s operations.

Clinton cited a death count similar to the latest claim from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC currently categorizes 160,000 deaths as “involving COVID-19.”

Clinton wrote, “What we saw last night sums up so much of the Trump administration: A law-breaking convention on your dime, on the lawn of your house, to celebrate a president like a king for overseeing the needless deaths of 180,000 Americans—and counting.”

Clinton attached a photo of protesters forming a message reading, “TRUMP FAILED 180000+ DIED.”

Left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media critiqued what they claimed was a lack of “social distancing” and mask-wearing at the RNC. The Washington Post published an article titled, “Few masks, little distancing: Trump celebrates at crowded White House party largely devoid of coronavirus precautions.” CNN ran a headline reading, “Few masks, lack of social distancing at final night of RNC.” ABC declared, “What virus? At GOP’s convention, pandemic is largely ignored.”

Christine Pelosi, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s eldest daughter, characterized the RNC as “illegal” due to “no masks” and “no distancing.” Her Twitter profile image is a photo of her wearing a mask.

Assorted left-wing pundits and Democrat operatives similarly described the RNC as “illegal.”

Clinton said on Monday that Joe Biden should not concede the presidential election “under any circumstances.” She also told her former presidential campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri that Democrats “have to have a massive legal operation” on Election Day and that she knows “the Biden campaign is working on that.”

 

The critical element required is a pattern of criminal or racketeering activity. This pattern is proved by showing two predicate crimes were committed within ten years. The list of predicate crimes is extensive and includes bribery, embezzlement, fraud, theft, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. 

 

The list of predicate crimes is extensive and includes bribery, embezzlement, fraud, theft, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. 

 

 

Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Deep State: A RICO Criminal Conspiracy

 

By Ron Wright

We who elected President Trump understood our elected officials and the Deep State were sandbagging Trump and self-dealing public funds. It was no secret that President Trump is no angel, unpresidential, blunt, and crude, and a disruptor. Trump was hired to drain the swamp.

I watched this kabuki theater unfold over the last several years. Through my eyes as a shopworn gumshoe, I will explain what is happening. My investigative curiosity was first piqued by the ATF Fast and Furious scandal and continues through the recent House impeachment show trial. There is a common element running through all of these cons — the actions of an organized crime conspiracy.   A group of people either acting alone or in concert with others committed crimes with a common purpose - a criminal enterprise as described in "CRIMINAL RICO: 18 USC. §§1961-1968 A Manual For Federal Prosecutors."

 

The players acted together – in the usurpation of power, the abuse of power by public officials, bribery, thefts by fraud including federal funds, money laundering, perjury and the obstruction of justice, the violations of fundamental of civil rights, aided and abetted in the commission of these crimes and or to conceal these crimes. Criminals will lie and can't keep their lies straight. Their methods and behaviors are the same, whether engaging in street crimes or elaborate white-collar financial schemes. The only difference is when more money is involved, the perps are more adept in concealing, covering up their sins, and hiding where the money went. Many of these scandals are well known to the American Thinker readers. I will focus my comments on Hillary's home brew sever and the Clinton Foundation as an example of how RICO can be used to prosecute the players.

FBI Director James Comey indicted Hillary Clinton for her home brew server at his press conference. Comey then egregiously concluded that there was no evidence of criminal intent purportedly “required” to prosecute. Comey bastardized the Federal Espionage Act in absolving Hillary Clinton. FBI's investigation of Clinton's emails was low-balled. There was never a real search for the truth. The outcome was preordained. My jaw dropped wide open. I knew the fix was in. FBI Director Comey lied to the people with a straight face. Why?

 

The chance meeting of Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac was no mere coincidence. This chat was not about the grandkids. Bill Clinton was there to convey a specific message to Lynch that there would be no indictment of Hillary. Hillary Clinton's email case must tank. This would have constituted bribery, if AG Lynch was assured she would continue as AG in  Clinton Administration. This meeting took place only weeks before Comey's press conference dumping Hillary Clinton's email case.

 

The Deep State needed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election, or the dike holding back the truth would burst. Trump, the disruptor, was an immediate threat to both the Republicans, Democrats, and the Deep State. If the truth were laid bare, it would expose the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Senate and House, and many executive departments for these abuses of power, corruption, bribery, frauds, and thefts of public funds.

 

High-level government officials and the Deep State committed many serious felonies either in furtherance of or to conceal the crimes committed in the pay to play scam. In exchange for favorable consideration by Secretary Clinton, those who benefited would donate to the Clinton Foundation. The FBI started and stopped investigations into the Clinton Foundation at least twice as reported by the Washington Post. Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash, is the most damning. Dinesh D'Souza slammed the Foundation in the National Review, as did The Federalist.

The status of the investigation of the Foundation by US Attorney John Huber's is unknown. Rudy Giuliani said there was enough to pursue "Clinton Inc" as racketeering under RICO. The Foundation and its affiliated nonprofits require a real investigation with an in-depth forensic audit to determine where the money went. In financial crimes investigation, the prime rule is "follow the money, honey." Illicit nonprofits have many ways to divert funds by inflating salaries, expenses, and money laundering.

Illegal nonprofit schemes are difficult to prosecute without hard evidence and the testimony of insiders. The motive of Hillary Clinton's use of the home brew server was to conceal emails from FOIA requests that would provide the hard evidence. Hillary Clinton destroyed the data on her server and cell phones with the knowledge of the FBI. It took years for Judicial Watch and others to pry and recover some of these damning emails from the foot-dragging executive departments that were complicit and knew what was going on.

RICO initially was used to target mob families. RICO is also a useful tool to fight white collar conspiracies. They both have the same hierarchy of low-level crooks led by the top players, linked together with a common purpose. RICO has tools to squeeze the low-level operatives to gather evidence to prosecute, jail, and seize assets of the conspirators. The critical element required is a pattern of criminal or racketeering activity. This pattern is proved by showing two predicate crimes were committed within ten years. The list of predicate crimes is extensive and includes bribery, embezzlement, fraud, theft, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. The typical five-year statute of limitations for most federal felonies is extended to ten years from the last criminal act or acts committed to conceal the conspiracy, i.e., lying under oath and similar actions to obstruct justice. The prison sentences are steep. The effect is to cut off the head of the organization and not just the low-level players.

The criminal activity extends back to the ATF's Fast and Furious program through the House impeachment show trial to cover up the illegal acts of the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Department of State, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA. A telltale sign that the DOJ under US Attorney General Barr is willing to play hardball and may use RICO, came when he spoke to the Federalist Society: "Barr accuses liberal 'resistance' of trying to 'sabotage' Trump." AG Barr said this, "shows FBI launched Trump campaign investigation on the 'thinnest of suspicions." AG Barr is the new sheriff in town, he wears a badge, has guns and will travel, can impanel grand juries, indict and arrest people, and is not limited in his jurisdiction, like DOJ IG Horowitz.

The collective actions of the Deep State are and were a silent coup to delegitimize a Presidential candidate. Once elected to impede and resist the duly elected President. The President's law enforcement and intel agencies were corrupted at the highest level and went rogue.

Organized crime can't exist without corrupt law enforcement. As I wrote in a letter to President Trump earlier this year:

. . . I believe you understand the gravity of the situation and of its importance to the very survival of our Country as we know it. If the people involved are not held accountable for their actions, we will be no different than some Third World Banana Republic.

Failure to act will destroy our founding principle of the Rule of Law as stated by President John Adams, "We Are a Nation of Laws, Not of Men" and we cannot allow a two-tiered justice system to prevail.

 

Ron Wright is a retired detective from Riverside PD, CA. BA in political science CSUF, M. Adm. University of Cal, Riverside. Facebook at Ron T. Cop.

 

 

“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan  AMERICAN THINKER.com

 

Peter Schweizer, author of “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends

It’s About Corruption – Replacing a Failed 



and Corrupt Political Establishment

 

By Brian C. Joondeph

American presidents have their famous speeches, remembered long after they leave office. JFK said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and told Mikhail Gorbachev to: “Tear down this wall.”

Some speeches are memorable in other ways. George W. Bush, days after 9/11, ironically announced that: “Islam is peace.” Barack Obama proclaimed himself the messiah: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”

President Trump has certainly given strong speeches, such as at the recent March for Life. But he may be remembered more for his raucous rallies and hilarious tweets. Yet one speech has flown under the radar.

On Oct. 13, 2016, just weeks before the election, Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Florida. Leading up to the election, he was holding several rallies each day, giving numerous speeches, but this seemingly random speech stands out.

The enigmatic Q group refers to it as the speech that got Donald Trump elected. As it was one of many pre-election speeches he gave and at a Florida rally, it may have only been heard by a fraction of Trump voters before the election, but it certainly encapsulates his philosophy, both before and after the election, toward government corruption.

The speech explains the resistance by the Washington, D.C. ruling class to Trump’s candidacy, election, and presidency. Trump attacked the foundation of deep state power, wealth, and corruption. Trump was indeed an “existential threat” to the cabal.

Before even being elected, and years before Joe Biden decided to run for president, Donald Trump was focused on corruption. Not to influence his reelection, as House Democrats accuse, since he wasn’t even president yet. But because rooting out corruption was part of his plan to make America great again.

Everything that followed his election, from the Russian collusion accusations, White House leaks, special counsel investigation, and now impeachment, is a reaction to the ideas Trump explains in this 6-minute speech. Watch it here or read the transcript.

The opening lines are prescient, becoming painfully obvious now almost four years after he laid out the scale of corruption.

 Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political

establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.

The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.

The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists.

For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat.

“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption.

Candidate Trump then went on to say:

It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.

This is money given to corrupt foreign countries, disguised as aid, only to be returned to the political elite by hiring their unqualified family members for do-nothing jobs, as in Hunter Biden, or funneling these U.S. taxpayer dollars back into political foundations, consultancies, or campaign contributions.

Once upon a time, journalists investigated such corruption. Now they ignore it, aiding and abetting the deception. As Trump said in his speech:

The corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They are a political special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with an agenda.

Speak up against the cabal and you will be destroyed, or even commit suicide. Trump went on:

The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means that are well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more.

It’s amazing that Trump predicted exactly what happened a few days ago when “Republican political strategist” Rick Wilson called the group of “you” mentioned above, “credulous boomer rubes” with CNN hack Don Lemon laughing so hard he almost fell off his chair.

President Trump has been impeached for drawing back the curtain on deep state malfeasance. Before handing over millions of hard earned U.S. taxpayer dollars to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, he wanted to know the money was necessary and going where promised, rather than into the pockets of oligarchs and U.S. politician grifters.

He acted as he was required to under the “Treaty with Ukraine on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters,” ratified in 2000, 15 years before Trump announced his run for president. He was doing his job, fulfilling his Constitutional oath of office. His reward for pouring roach killer in the nest of Democrat crooks and knaves was impeachment and a concerted effort by Democrats, the media, and nasty NeverTrump Republicans, all heads on the same toxic hydra, to overturn the last election and rig the next one.

It’s not about Trump enriching himself, despite what Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler say, it’s for the country. Again, from the famous speech:

I didn’t need to do this. I built a great company, and I had wonderful life. I could have enjoyed the benefits of years of successful business for myself and my family, instead of going through this absolute horror show of lies, deceptions and malicious attacks. I’m doing it because this country has given me so much, and I feel strongly it was my turn to give back.

It’s all about corruption, exposing it, rooting it out, and destroying it. Those who are the most threatened are those who scream the loudest. Given the Democrat and media apoplexy, Trump must be getting closer to the truth.

He ended his speech by throwing down the gauntlet:

We will vote to put this corrupt government cartel out of business. We will remove from our politics the special interests who have betrayed our workers, our borders, our freedoms, and our sovereign rights as a nation. We will end the politics of profit, we will end the rule of special interests, we will put a stop to the raiding of our country – and the disenfranchisement of our people.

It’s not about abuse of power or obstruction of Congress. It’s not about quid pro quo or bribery. It’s simply a new sheriff in town, bringing law and order to drain a swamp of greed and corruption. It’s President Trump doing exactly what he said he would do if elected, making America great again.

He is doing what past presidents have talked about and promised, but then either looked the other way or became active participants in the graft. And those milking the system are petrified over exposure and their long overdue reckoning.

 

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedInTwitter, and QuodVerum.

 


Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List Of Suspicious ‘Charities’

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/04/charity-navigator-clinton-foundation.html

 

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy

HILLARY & BILLARY: The Evita and Juan Peron of Wall Street


The Clinton Looting of the Poor of Haiti

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-clinton-mafia-loots-poor-of-haiti.html

 

 

“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”

 

 

IT WAS BILL CLINTON WHO UNLEASHED WALL STREET’S BIGGEST CRIMINAL BANKSTERS…. And haven’t they sucked up the banksters’ gratuities since?

 

Only Barack Obama has serviced banksters more than Hillary and Billary!

 

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-bankster-funded-democrat-party-for.html

 

“Clinton also failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street bankers.”

 

FROM DAY ONE THE CLINTONS HAVE BEEN A CRIME TIDAL WAVE!

 

Anatomy of a Clinton Scam

By Charles Ortel

“The bigger the lie, the more likely the buy-in” -- that must be the theory underlying a plan relentlessly executed by Bill and Hillary Clinton to suck money from the public in support of a supposed “charity” currently known as “Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.”

Unlike the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that was originally funded primarily by the Gates family, the Clinton Foundation was meant to take money from the general public, and from governments.

So, affairs of the Clinton Foundation were never supposed to be directed by the Clinton family. But public records apparently prove that strict rules governing the conduct of public charities are not applied when it comes to long-time “public servants” such as the Clintons.

Incorporated but not Organized

Incorporated on Oct. 23, 1997, just as word started to leak of Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and while doubts crested concerning foreign funding for the Clinton legal defense effort, the main Clinton charity was originally named “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation” in papers filed with the Arkansas Secretary of State by three lawyers.

However, to qualify for federal tax-exemption, a charity must be formally organized not simply by lawyers but by, at least three truly independent directors, who needed to adopt articles of incorporation and bylaws in a formal organizational meeting before the entity conducted official operations. Bylaws for this entity may not have been formally adopted by initial directors (referred to as “Trustees”) until Dec. 23, 1997 as you can see for yourself by reviewing these materials available through the main Clinton Foundation website.

A reasonable question to ask is: what did “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation” do, if anything, prior to adopting bylaws, and how did they accomplish these actions before becoming formally ''organized ``?

“Formless aggregations of individuals” are not “organizations”

Well before Dec. 23, 1997, Clinton allies laid groundwork required to erect the Clinton Foundation in a portion of Little Rock that had long been run-down, depressing local property values.

However, the IRS explains that only “organizations” are eligible for exemption from taxes, not “formless aggregations of individuals”:

“An individual, partnership, or formless aggregation of individuals, however, cannot qualify for exemption under IRC 501(c)(3). If it is determined that no organization exists, the applicant will be advised that no ruling or determination letter can be issued [emphasis added].”

Newspaper accounts, court records and other publicly available information show that early efforts on behalf of the “Clinton Foundation” were not conducted in corporate form, but instead loosely and informally, chiefly  by Clinton political supporters.

For example, on Nov. 7, 1997, City of Little Rock public meeting notes state:

“[Little Rock] Mayor Dailey said he received word from Skip Rutherford, local coordinator for the Presidential Library at 7:00 AM, that President and Mrs. Clinton has selected the site along the Arkansas River in Little Rock as the location for the proposed William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library [emphasis added].”

In this C-SPAN clip, Rutherford is clearly seen explaining widespread activities carried out through Nov. 7, 1997:

In 1997, and for years afterward, Bill and Hillary Clinton were not lawfully designated directors, trustees, officers, or agents of the purported legal entity that was supposed to operate the presidential library and research center only in Little Rock.

How did Bill and Hillary Clinton have lawful authority to pick the site for Bill’s presidential library?

Moreover, did The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation even exist as a lawfully organized corporate entity in 1997?

Admissions Against Interest

Under siege late in 1997, in 1998, and then safely through the Impeachment trial by early 1999, the Clinton team must have been sure that loyal elements within the Arkansas Attorney General’s office, the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney General’s office would never prosecute those responsible for operating the Clinton Foundation illegally so long as the Clintons remained resident inside the White House.

Though required to do so, the Clinton Foundation never filed an informational return (on Form 990, or 990EZ) for the “short period” from Oct. 23, 1997 through Dec. 31, 1997. This is important because, somehow, the Clinton Foundation acquired financial resources sufficient to pay lawyers and fund operations starting late in October. And a key unanswered question remains: “who advanced them the money?”

In a report to Michigan government authorities, filed in July 1998, Rutherford explained why the Clinton Foundation did not file an IRS Form 990 or 990EZ for 1997 because:

“The organization [was] not in existence last fiscal year--[Not Applicable] [emphasis added].”

In the second informational return the Clinton Foundation ultimately did file with the IRS for 1999, on Nov. 20, 2000, an officer of the entity admitted, under penalties of perjury:

“The Foundation began operations in 1998 [emphasis added] and is in the early stages of raising funds to meet the exempt purposes. Program development is in the very early planning stage and no significant program service expenses have been incurred.”

So, The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation did not exist in 1997, even as elements within the IRS rushed to grant federal tax-exemption to the entity back to Oct. 23, 1997 as this “Determination Letter,” found on the Clinton Foundation website clearly states.

Times were certainly different from 1997 through 2000, but we remember when the IRS rigorously and ruthlessly enforced key charity laws and regulations under President Obama.

Are former Presidents above the law?

Stillborn in 1997, the Clinton Foundation has managed to grow into a network of entities, none of which has ever lawfully been organized or operated. This allegation is now supported by some 200 podcasts, averaging two hours in length each, most of which are accompanied by pull-down slide presentations that readily take viewers and should take investigators into details of what seems to be the largest set of unprosecuted charity frauds in history:

Bob Mueller, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein may have “missed” the early development of this scam, from 2001 through 2005 when the FBI and DOJ “investigated” the Clinton Foundation as these redacted records reveal.

And, on the 10th anniversary of devastating disasters that flattened portions of Haiti, Hillary Clinton actually crowed about US Attorney John Huber’s unconfirmed decision to wind down the latest “investigation” of potential Clinton Foundation crimes:

 

Hillary Clinton

@HillaryClinton

 

 

This week, the Justice Department determined that the lies that were peddled about me, my family, & @ClintonFdn are without merit.

I couldn’t be more grateful to everyone that stuck with us while we continued to focus on the work. Let’s keep going.
https://bbis.clintonfoundation.org/2020/annual-fund-m 

TOGETHER, WE CONTINUE PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST

Donate today and help us continue creating economic opportunity, improving public health, and inspiring civic engagement and service.

bbis.clintonfoundation.org

 

125K

9:30 AM - Jan 12, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

39.9K people are talking about this

 

 

The Clinton Foundation’s record of exploiting natural disasters to source funds for which they never account is as long as it is shameless.

Americans across the political spectrum must push our government authorities to hold operators of the Clinton charity scam network to account.

“Bleachbit” notwithstanding, overwhelming evidence of unprosecuted charity frauds dating to Oct. 23, 1997 hides in plain sight

Check applicable laws, then check facts for yourselves and remember these words from John Adams:

“Facts are stubborn things [emphasis added]; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

During the 2016 election cycle, the mainstream media failed to probe the heart of the more recent Clinton Foundation scandal -- how the Clinton family may have exploited Hillary’s position as Secretary of State and her standing as presidential frontrunner through November 2016.

Building fortunes through operating charities is a monstrous affront to decent, law-abiding people of all political persuasions, so it is not a partisan thing, here, to attack the Clintons for their known public record of transgressions.

In fact, a better question might be to wonder why Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, are not much more insistent that ongoing Clinton charity scams be fully exposed, and aggressively prosecuted by state, federal and foreign governments.

 

 

 

Our Russia Collusion Nightmare: All Hillary's Fault?

 

By J.B. Shurk

The biggest political scandal in the history of the United States.  Three years of constant lies told by government agents, political operatives, and deceitful news personalities.  Thousands of hours of criminal investigative interviews; thousands of written stories and television segments; thousands of leaks and insinuations and threats.  All to take down the legitimately elected American president, Donald J. Trump.

Now that some light is finally revealing just how rotten this whole nonsense has been from the very beginning, the most maddening aspect of all is the one thing not said nearly enough: every bit of this frame-up job to hang the American president for being a Russian agent and traitor to his nation began as a way to inoculate Hillary Clinton from her largest political vulnerabilities going into the 2016 campaign.

Aside from her questionable health and a lifetime of scandal, Hillary had two sizable liabilities (of her own creation) that threatened her ability to win the general election: (1) her use of the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle for laundering bribes from foreign governments and moneyed interests and (2) her decision to conduct the business of the State Department (as well as to discuss our nation's most guarded secrets) on an unsecured private email server that had been hacked by known and unknown foreign governments and adverse entities.  Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash did a remarkable job exposing the Clinton Foundation as a spectacular pay-to-play operation that had allowed Hillary to trade the powers of her office for personal aggrandizement (including the sale of 20% of America's uranium to Russia for, among other things, $145 million transferred to her foundation).  And even though the Obama Justice Department was doing its best to minimize the revelation of Hillary's gross breach of national security and slow-walk any repercussions, the American people were discovering that life-and-death secrets had been entrusted to a person with such disregard for our well-being that she stored them on a personal server in a downstairs bathroom.

For a normal person with a modicum of ethical concern, sense of shame, or patriotic duty, these crimes would have been more than sufficient to prompt withdrawal from an election for the country's highest office.  This type of honest self-reflection and private admission of guilt is alien to the Clintons, though, so what would have represented immovable obstacles to anyone else became just another set of political variables that had to be neutralized in her favor.  

I can just imagine the conversation Hillary had with her most trusted advisers — not the ones with the official titles like Robby Mook and Brian Fallon, whose chief value lay in their expendable nature and the ease with which Hillary could roll them up into any unexpected scandal to be disposed with the trash at a future time of her convenience.  I mean the real group of confidants, the ones who have "the ends justify the means" tattooed on their souls and have gotten away with more crimes than we'll ever know.  If you're Sid Blumenthal or John Podesta or Cheryl Mills or Marc Elias or Lanny Davis and you know where some of the bodies are buried along the spectacular trail of Clinton corruption through the years, then the prospect of a massive pay-to-play scandal or criminal indictment for mishandling top-secret intelligence or engaging wittingly or unwittingly in espionage is just another bump on the long road of progressive relativism and Clinton nihilism.  If Clinton Cash and FBI investigators come knocking, you simply accuse all your political opponents of being the real grifters and foreign agents.

That's exactly what Team Hillary did.  They leveled allegations of criminal bribery at Jeb Bush; they questioned Marco Rubio's loyalty to the United States; but Donald Trump was the prize.  A man who had spent a lifetime in the exotic world of luxury real estate around the globe while mixing it up with all kinds of powerful figures in that often shady world was the ideal mark, and he also happened to be a political novice who the Democrats universally believed would lose in a landslide of historical dimensions for political lore long to come.  When Paul Manafort joined his team just before the kickoff to the general election and brought with him a lifetime of political baggage that included skullduggery around Russia's zone of interest, it must have seemed as if Christmas had come early for the Clinton team.  (Kind of makes you wonder how coincidental this unforced error really was.) 

And so, after a lifetime in the public eye, starring in a popular television show, and rubbing elbows with celebrities and politicians of all stripes, Donald Trump woke up one day to find himself being generally slandered (and libeled) as a Russian spy by the information merchants who control America's airwaves and print media.  That had to have made him laugh, considering that the press had spent most of his foray into politics demeaning him as a greedy capitalist playboy nationalist who selfishly placed America's interests before those of our common world.  

Yes, before John Brennan devised a global espionage ring to frame President Trump as a national security risk and enable the FBI to open up counterintelligence investigations into his political associates; before Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe attested to false information with the FISA Court; before Robert Mueller put the screws to General Flynn in order to sink a lifetime defender of America for political purposes; before President Obama initiated changes to security classification that opened up scurrilous investigative records on President-Elect Trump to an exponentially greater number of bureaucrats with partisan motivations; before Susan Rice left an electronic CYA memorandum at 12:15 P.M. on Inauguration Day of 2017 noting that Sally Yates and James Clapper and John Brennan and Joe Biden and Jim Comey had all agreed in the Oval Office with President Obama to continue any investigations "by the book"; before Samantha Power unmasked hundreds of names picked up during the course of electronic surveillance that were deemed to somehow implicate the new president in wrongdoing; even before the Clinton operatives and Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele first started composing the fan fiction now known as "the Dossier" — before all of this and everything else we have been forced to endure for three long years, there was Hillary Clinton, doing what she and her people know best: accusing her political opponent of the very crimes she had committed herself.  

As awful as this orchestrated campaign against President Trump has been, it is absolutely maddening to realize that none of it would have happened had Hillary Clinton not engaged in one of the greatest pay-for-play operations in American history while placing our most guarded secrets (as well as the very lives of our soldiers and civilians) on a silver platter for those governments and adversaries who wish us the most harm in this world.  Three years of Russian hysteria happened only because of the deep corruption of Hillary Clinton.

This scheme of political projection and wicked treachery should go down as a final reminder that America survives today only because President Trump managed to prevail against the nearly insurmountable wave of our government's intelligence agencies, the justice system, media propagandists, and the combined wills of the Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans intending to swamp him.

 

 

Only six percent of the billions of dollars the "Foundation" takes in goes to charity.  The rest subsidizes the lavish lifestyles of the Clintons and their sycophants; those people who have sold their souls to rub shoulders with unadulterated power.

 

Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List Of Suspicious ‘Charities’

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/04/charity-navigator-clinton-foundation.html

 

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy

 

 

Clinton Foundation bleeding money with no Clintons in high office

 

By Thomas Lifson

 

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation can no longer raise enough money to cover its expenses, ever since Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign failed to propel her into an office from which she could dispense political favors. Clinton Foundation reports to the IRS for the last two tax years have demonstrated that without anyone to grant boons, fewer donors are interested in supporting it.

Andrew Stiles reports for the Free Beacon:

The Clinton Foundation reported a loss of more than $16 million in 2018, according to newly released tax records, marking the second consecutive year of losses since Hillary Clinton's humiliating defeat to President Donald J. Trump in 2016.

The foundation reported total revenue of just $30.7 million, including $24.2 million worth of grants and contributions, a record low for the alleged "charity." That figure was well short of the foundation's total expenses for the year—$47.5 million— resulting in a net loss of $16.8 million.

The previous year, the Clinton Foundation reported a net loss of $16.1 million. In total, the organization has lost a staggering $32.9 million since Hillary Clinton's lifelong quest for the presidency crumbled to dust in November 2016.

The contrast with previous years when political favors were a lure is striking:

The Clinton Foundation posted its highest revenue haul ($249 million) in 2009, the year Hillary was sworn in as President Barack Obama's secretary of state. By 2013, the foundation had reported an additional $392.2 million in revenue, and went on to raise $344.4 million between 2014 and 2016.

Between 2008 and 2016, the Clinton Foundation reported total revenue in excess of $1.1 billion, or an annual average of $130.4 million. Needless to say, Clinton's stunning failure to defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 election appears to have had a significant impact on the foundation's ability to raise money.

US Attorney for Utah, John Huber, has been tasked with investigating the Clinton Foundation. So far there has not been a single leak out of his office over its work. That could mean either that they have turned up nothing, or that the investigation and grand jury are proceeding with the secrecy that the law demands.

 

 

VIDEO:

THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION EXPOSED.

PAY-TO-PLAY FROM THE FIRST DAY!

 

https://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2019/01/sucking-in-bribes-dirty-story-of-two-of.html

 

Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds?  There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all.  What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.

 

“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service” into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.

 

 

The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”

 

HILLARY & BILLARY AND RED CHINA!

 

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/10/white-house-is-like-subway-you-have-to.html

 

“Facilitating strategic technology transfer in return for money is an old Clinton game.  The Chinese bought their way to access of considerable space technology when Bill Clinton was president.  Remember Charlie Trie, Loral, and the rest of the crew?”

 

THE CLINTONS AND RED CHINA:

A MONEY MAKING TRAITORSHIP!

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/08/who-are-bigger-servants-of-red-china.html

"Ask Jeff Sessions about the charges.  Money was flowing into the Clinton Foundation from all over the world, disguised, rerouted through a Canadian charity, all to obscure its origins."

 

AMERICAN PREDATORS:

 

THE BRIBES SUCKING LIVES OF HILLARY & BILLARY

 

The Clintons have been a criminal enterprise since they came to power in Arkansas.  The list of scandals they have generated is long and tawdry.  Their principal goal then and now has always been to enrich themselves.  They never once had a moral compunction about lying, cheating, selling, and stealing their way to wealth. They are the Perons of America.  They eventually set up a "foundation" and the money kept rolling in. 

 

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-clinton-foundation-for-sucking-in.html

 

Only six percent of the billions of dollars the "Foundation" takes in goes to charity.  The rest subsidizes the lavish lifestyles of the Clintons and their sycophants; those people who have sold their souls to rub shoulders with unadulterated power.

 

 

THE SHADY POLITICS OF HILLARY CLINTON and her PAY-TO-PLAY MAFIA

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/had-hillary-clinton-won-election-left.html

 

The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion. 

 

Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose.  PATRICIA McCARTHY

 

Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before.  She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us. PATRICIA McCARTHY

 

 

 

THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY slush fund

 

https://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/12/global-grifters-clintons-phony-charity.html

 

“There is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,” states a separate interview memo attached to the submission.

 

“Bill Clinton mixes and matches his personal 

 

business with that of the foundation. Many 

 

people within the foundation have tried to 

 

caution him about this but he does not listen, 

 

and there really is no talking to him,” the 

 

memo added.