Monday, September 16, 2019

ELIZABETH WARREN CLAIMS SHE WILL END CORRUPTION IN D.C. - AND PAY-TO-PLAY HILLARY CLINTON WILL SHOW HER HOW

Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising  the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson- Bowles deficit- Reduction commission, which called for sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’






Elizabeth Warren Claims Plan to End Corruption in Washington

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is interviewed the spin room after the Democratic Presidential Debate at Texas Southern University on September 12, 2019 in Houston, Texas. Ten Democratic presidential hopefuls were chosen from the larger field of candidates to participate in the debate hosted by ABC News in partnership with Univision. …
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
5:37

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) unveiled yet another plan Monday, which she claims will end corruption in Washington. This comes in the wake of mounting questions surrounding the lawmaker’s controversial actions in the past.

Warren revealed another one of her big plans in a lengthy Medium post on Monday titled, “My Plan to End Washington Corruption,” teasing it as the “most sweeping set of anti-corruption reforms since Watergate.”
The presidential candidate argues that “right-wing politicians have spent a generation attacking the very idea of government” but concedes that the government “doesn’t work for most people.” Insurance companies, Warren says, “put profits ahead of the health and well-being of the American people” and lobby against Medicare f0r All. Oil companies, Warren continues, deliberately “conceal” studies on climate change and fund “bought-and-paid-for climate denial research” while opposing the Green New Deal. She says the same of pharmaceutical companies, arguing that they want to “squeeze every last penny out of the people who depend on their prescriptions, while their army of lobbyists suffocates reform any time there’s a discussion in Congress on drug pricing.”
She also places the bulk of the blame on President Trump, calling his administration “the most corrupt administration of our lifetimes.”
“But these problems did not start with Donald Trump. They are much bigger than him — and solving them will require big, structural change to fundamentally transform our government,” she writes.
Warren’s lengthy plan to combat corruption in Washington focuses largely on lobbyist activities and government transparency.
On lobbying, she pledges to:
  • Ban “golden parachutes” that provide corporate bonuses to executives for serving in the federal government.
  • Restrict the ability of lobbyists to enter government jobs.
  • Make it illegal for elected officials and top government appointees to become lobbyists — ever.
  • Restrict the ability of companies to buy up former federal officials to rig the game for themselves.
On transparency, she pledges to:
  • Prohibit courts from sealing records involving major public health and safety issues.
  • Impose strict transparency standards for federal courts and remove barriers to accessing electronic judicial records.
  • Strengthen federal open records laws to close loopholes and exemptions that hide corporate influence, and increase transparency in Congress, federal agencies, and nonprofits that aim to influence policy.
She also promises to open a U.S. Office of Public Integrity and expand the existing Office of Congressional Ethics.
Warren plans to reintroduce a version of her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act as well, Politico reports.
She is expected to delve deeper into her anti-corruption plan during a speech Monday evening at New York City’s Washington Square Park.

Tomorrow, September 16th, I’ll be in New York City to tell the story of how working women organized to change the course of history after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. I hope to see you there: http://ewar.ren/warren-nyc 




Warren, however, has faced corruption scandals of her own in years – even months – past. While she has publicly decried corruption in Washington, some say she has willingly participated in the problem. For instance, Warren advocated for and accepted money from big defense contractors – particularly Raytheon, which is based in her home state – in the past. She accepted defense industry money as recently as 2018.
Per Foreign Policy:
Still, Warren’s ties to the defense industry—including another company with facilities in Massachusetts, General Dynamics—could come up during her presidential campaign. She reportedly made an effort to reach out to both companies during her 2012 Senate campaign and time in the Senate, including facility visits and at least one phone call to Raytheon’s chief executive. She also accepted more than $80,000 in donations from the defense industry from 2011 to 2018 and in her first year in the Senate fought to stop the Army from shifting funds away from a General Dynamics-built communications network that a government watchdog has dinged for cost overruns and performance deficiencies.
Warren has also prided herself on funding her presidential campaign without the help of big, influential donors. However, that is not necessarily true, as Warren is reportedly using what has been described as a “stockpile” of funds from her senatorial bid – in which she happily courted big donors, attended fundraisers, and ultimately accepted their money– to cushion her presidential campaign.
As Breitbart News reported:
The Massachusetts senator attended big fundraising events for her Senate reelection bid in 2018, and while she has declined big donor involvement in her presidential bid, she reportedly transferred $10.4 million in “leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run.”
Ultimately, Warren’s $10.4 million cushion gave her more flexibility, allowing her to get ahead of other candidates, some of whom are still struggling to get their campaigns off the ground.
Some of her former donors were quick to call out her hypocrisy, including Gov. Ed Rendell, who donated $4,000 to Warren in 2018:
Rendell cohosted a Biden fundraiser earlier this year. To his surprise, the Warren campaign slammed the event as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors” – despite the fact that Warren benefitted from similar events in the recent past.
“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Rendell said, according to the Times. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”
Warren has also faced continuous criticism for falsely claiming Native American heritage throughout her life and listing herself as a minority professor for years. A DNA test released last year revealed that Warren had between 1/64 and 1/1024 Native American heritage (or 0.1 percent to 1.56 percent) – none of which, if exists, stems from tribes in the U.S. Warren has denied that she did so to get a leg up in academia but has refused to go into details on her false claims, telling potential supporters that she made a “mistake” and apologizing for “furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted.”



So Hillary Clinton is the éminence grise behind Elizabeth Warren?

Up until now, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, have always been reported as two aging leftists unable to stand each other. "Friends now, trouble ahead," reads some of the headline of a 2016 Politico news story.
Get a load of how those times have changed, according to NBC News:
The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren's launch has been previously reported — according to several people familiar with their discussions who spoke to NBC on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of private interactions.
And the pair have been talking a lot, to the point of Hillary Clinton seemingly backseat-driving the Warren campaign. According to NBC:
It’s hard to know exactly how many times they’ve reached out to each other — or precisely what they’ve discussed — in part because neither camp wants to reveal much of anything about their interaction and in part because they have each other's phone numbers, and there are many ways for two high-powered politicians to communicate that don’t involve their staffs.
One source was aware of just one additional call between Warren and Clinton since then. But a person who is close to Clinton said the contact has been substantial enough to merit attention, describing a conversation between the two as seemingly recent because it was "front of mind" for her.
Very typical Clintonian - which is to say behind the scenes and non-transparent.
And while the two share the same left-wing extremism, and their blonde-white-woman brand of pantsuit suburban socialism (Hillary was always much farther left than her husband Bill), the Warren relationship is probably more about exerting political muscle.
Warren may still not be able to stand Clinton, but Clinton is useful to Warren for rigging the Democratic nomination.
According to NBC:
More important, an explicit or implicit blessing from Clinton could help Warren if she finds herself battling for delegates and superdelegates at a contested Democratic convention next summer.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this convention," said Deb Kozikowski, the vice chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
So instead of Democratic voters choosing their candidates freely, quite unlike the 2016 fiasco where Hillary Clinton's operatives rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, Clinton is doing the same thing she did in 2016, putting her thumb on the scale of Democratic party politics, this time for a willing and ambitious Elizabeth Warren, to put the fix in on delegates. That ought to go over real well for Democratic turnout once they realize another fix is in.
Meanwhile, Warren is now useful for Clinton, who still wants to be president, but now can't be. In Warren, she now has a useful puppet for getting her agenda and surrogates into the White House. That would not only get her the socialism she craves, it would also protect her from the long arm of the law.
The personnel issue is interesting because "the slots" have always been of paramount importance to Hillary, ever since she fired the White House travel office staff because "we need the slots."
Back when the pair couldn't stand each other, Warren was backseat-driving to Clinton's campaign, vetoing Clinton's "people" in a battle over "slots." Politico reported:
But there’s tension on the horizon: If Clinton wins, Warren has promised to rattle the gates of a Clinton White House — as she did to President Barack Obama — pushing for progressive, anti-Wall Street crusaders to fill posts as top economic advisers and, most importantly to her of all, Treasury secretary.
Warren and her staffers have already been feeding to the Clinton campaign lists of individuals they would consider appropriate for those posts — and signaling in unsubtle terms those whose appointment they would fight to block.
The reverse could be just as true, with now Clinton backseat-driving who the appointments would be, who's in, who's out, as the pair plan a socialist takeover.
None of this is good news for the Democrats. A jurassic political powermonger, and a far-left fake Indian trying to come off as having sane ideas, doesn't represent a bright new generation with fine fresh ideas, just the same old machine politics, rendered worse by extremism.
If the Democratic emails get hacked again this year, oh, what a story those emails of this alliance of two leftists who secretly loathe each other might just tell.
Image credit: Tim Pierce, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0




The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”


“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.”

SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON

 

Leaked Julian Assange Message:

 

Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected, Sadistic, Sociopath’

 


"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 - AMERICANTHINKER.com

Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List Of Suspicious ‘Charities’


"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 - AMERICANTHINKER.com

Media silent on dismissal of DNC 
suit against Julian Assange
A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded” with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was “illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept, the television evening news programs and the publications of the pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the presidency in the 2016 US elections.
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall coverage.
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Timeseditorial page editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and information they will hide from the American and world population.
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of which WikiLeaks is itself an example.
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political, financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.” This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of the press mandated by the US Constitution.
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents were not provided to them by the Putin regime.
The ruling demonstrated the flagrant illegality of the US vendetta against Assange. The slander that he was operating as a “Russian agent” to “interfere” in US politics was used by the American government and its intelligence agencies to pressure the Ecuadorian regime to sever Assange’s internet access in 2016, and again in 2018. It served as a central pretext for its illegal termination in April of his political asylum in the embassy building.
The judgment was also an implicit exposure of the lawlessness of the attempts by the Trump administration, with the full support of the Democrats, to extradite Assange from Britain, so that he can be prosecuted on 18 US charges, including 17 espionage counts, carrying a maximum sentence of 175 years’ imprisonment.
The Trump administration and the Justice Department are claiming that it was illegal for WikiLeaks and Assange to publish US army war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other documents exposing US war crimes and intrigues, provided by the courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Koeltl’s ruling, however, reasserted the fundamental democratic principle that WikiLeaks had a right to publish the 2016 DNC documents, even if they had been obtained by the Russian government, or any other entity, illegally.
The clear implication is that even if Manning’s decision to leak US military and diplomatic documents was a violation of the law, WikiLeaks’ publication of them was not. The publication of both the 2010 and the 2016 leaks was constitutionally protected journalistic activity.
Koeltl further undermined the claims of the Trump administration, the Democrats and the media that Assange is a “hacker,” undeserving of First Amendment protections. The judge repeatedly referred to Assange as a “journalist” and WikiLeaks as a “publisher.”
In other words, the attempt to extradite Assange to the US and prosecute him is a frontal assault on the US Constitution and press freedom. In its disregard for domestic and international law, it can be described only as an extraordinary rendition operation, similar to the kidnappings and torture operations conducted by the CIA.
The hostile response to Koeltl’s ruling on the part of the entire political and media establishment, in the US and internationally, demonstrates that this conspiracy will not be defeated by plaintive appeals to the governments, political parties and media corporations that have spearheaded the assault on Assange’s legal and democratic rights.
All of them are using the persecution of Assange as a test case for the imposition of ever-more authoritarian measures, aimed at suppressing mounting popular hostility to war, social inequality and an assault on democratic rights.
What is required is the development of a mass movement from below, to mobilise the immense social and political power of the working class internationally to secure Assange’s liberty and to defend all democratic rights.


GEORGE SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS
*
NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George S oros, is raising money for an eventual court fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist, unnecessary wall.”
*
*
“Obama would declare himself president for life with S oros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
*
“Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became disabled?”

  
THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY slush fund
*
*

“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.


CLINTON MAFIA AND THEIR BANKSTERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS
WHO IS TIGHTER WITH THE PLUNDERING BANKSTERS? CLINTON, OBAMA or TRUMP?

The Clinton White House famously abolished the Glass–Steagall legislation, which separated commercial and investment banking. The move was a boon for Wall Street firms and led to major bank mergers that 

some analysts say helped contribute to the 

2008 financial crisis.

Bill and Hillary Clinton raked in massive speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, with CNN documenting a total of at least $7.7 million in paid speeches to big financial firms, including Goldman Sachs and UBS. Hillary Clinton made $675,000 from speeches to Goldman Sachs specifically, and her husband secured more than $1,550,000 from Goldman speeches. In 2005 alone, Bill Clinton collected over $500,000 from three Goldman Sachs events.


Hillary Clinton is simply the epitome of the rabid self – a whirlpool of selfishness, greed, and malignance.


It may well be true that Donald Trump has made his greatest contribution to the nation before even taking office:  the political destruction of Hillary Clinton and her infinitely corrupt machine. J.R. Dunn

"Hillary will do anything to distract you from her reckless record and the damage to the Democratic Party and the America she and The Obama's have created."


THE FINAL DAYS OF HILLARY CLINTON: MISTRESS of the SWAMP, GLOBAL BRIBES SUCKER and LOOTER OF THE POOR
“If the Constitution did not forbid cruel and unusual punishment, the sentence I would like to see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the same 8-by-12 cell.”    ROBERT ARVAY – AMERICAN THINKER com

 The Clinton Looting of the Poor of Haiti




“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!


“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.”

FOLLOWING THE CRIMES OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON BECOMES AMERICA’S ROAD TO REVOLUTION

 http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/bill-and-hillary-clintons-global.html


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising  the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson- Bowles deficit- Reduction commission, which called for sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’



No comments: