As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

WSJ: Swiss Bank Stepped Up Clinton Giving After Hillary Help

Updated 4:36 pm ET

Hillary Clinton. Job creator.

That’s right, she’ll be creating jobs for investigative journalists for years to come.

Here’s the latest in suspicious activity related to Mrs. Clinton, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.

If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.

Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.

From that point on, UBS’s engagement with the Clinton family’s charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.

The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.

There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons’ private and political activities overlap.

Well, coincidences do happen. And with the Clinton’s lots of coincidences happen at the same time.

What coincidence!

UPDATE: Clinton denies any wrongdoing.

Two-Month Gap in Clinton Benghazi Emails

Uh oh. Where have I heard this kind of thing before?

The Daily Beast is reporting that there is a two-month gap in the emails Hillary Clinton has released to the House Benghazi Committee, covering a period that saw escalating violence in Libya and the grant of an exemption to Clinton aide Huma Abedin allowing her to work for Clinton privately at The Foundation while staying on at State.

From the Beast:

Among the approximately 2,000 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released from her private account, there is a conspicuous two-month gap. There are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

A State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that’s true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate.

That two-month period also coincides with a senior Clinton aide obtaining a special exemption that allowed her to work both as a staff member to the secretary and in a private capacity for Clinton and her husband’s foundation. The Associated Press has sued to obtain emails from Clinton’s account about the aide, Huma Abedin.

An investigation by White House Dossier has found that there is in fact about 18 and a half minutes worth of emails missing from those provided to the Benghazi panel.

One of Clinton’s former staffers at State, her secretary, Rose Mary Woods, tells WHD that the emails were not provided because she inadvertently erased them while taking a phone call from Porky Pig.

DOJ Asked to Open Criminal Probe of Clinton Email Use

Two federal inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton through he use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State, the New York Times is reporting.

The IG’s found that her private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails,” according to the Times.

Ah yes, a candidate running for president while under criminal investigation. It could only be a Clinton.

From the Times:

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them. But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

How does she know she didn’t send classified information? Did she vet emails before sending them? Sounds a little time consuming.

This is what you get with the Clintons: ethically challenged, potentially criminal, affirmatively sleazy standard operating procedures.

Meantime, Politico has a great story about how the New York Times actually changed the wording in the story after the Clinton camp went ballistic:

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.”

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email” to “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account,” reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton’s possible role. The article’s URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.

But I don’t understand the justification for the change, other than that it’s really unpleasant to have Hillary’s goons screaming at you in the middle of the night.

If she’s not the target of the investigation, who exactly is? The server itself? Can you send an email server to prison? Would it care?

White House: Hillary Cherry-Picked Emails? No Problem!

Here’s how to think of the Hillary Clinton email saga.

It’s difficult, in a way, because emails are not tangible things. They’re a form of organized electricity. Lighter than air. Like thoughts that can float away, or in this case, be erased in an instant.

To better understand what she did, let’s go back to a time before there were emails. Let’s go back to the Reagan administration. And let’s imagine if Reagan’s first Secretary of State, Al Haig, instead of archiving written memos sent to him by other administration officials, brought them all home. And then, when someone found out about it, he went through them and turned over 30,000. And then he got his fireplace roaring and burned 30,000 others, claiming they had nothing to do with official business.

What would Democrats, and many Republicans, be saying about that?

Mrs. Clinton had no particular reason to erase her email server. It’s a piece of electronic hardware. It doesn’t start to bulge and take up more space around the house if it has emails on it. The only reason to erase it is that she didn’t want people to see what was on it.

Now we find out that she didn’t, as you might have expected, turn over all the work-related emails. What’s more, some were edited by her staff

None of this, somehow, is any problem at all for the Transparency White House.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Kevin Corke of Fox News, who in his short time at the White House has already established himself as one of the best cross examiners in the briefing room, wasn’t letting White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest get away Monday with the usual buck-passing to Hillary’s staff. The conversation made for some great TV.

One sample will show you why Corke presents a problem for the White House:

CORKE: “While she worked for the president, those emails were public record. They’re supposed to be maintained. All of them. Turns out they weren’t. They were on a private server. Which was against what the president asked her to do. And then after the fact we all find out she had her team, or her staff, pick and choose which ones that she said were available. Can’t you see how that’s a problem?”


Here’s the full exchange.

Hillary to the Jews: I’ll be Better for Israel

Hillary Clinton is trying to keep the Jewish money flowing by suggesting privately she will be better for Israel than President Obama, according to Politico.

And you know what? It will probably work. The people of my tribe vote Democratic every time – and donate the same way – despite the abundant, irrefutable evidence that Republicans are far more supportive of Israel than Democrats. Not to mention better for the economy, but one can at least have an argument about that.

From the piece:

Hillary Clinton is privately signaling to wealthy Jewish donors that — no matter the result of the Iranian nuclear negotiations — she will be a better friend to Israel than President Barack Obama.

But, even as donors increasingly push Clinton on the subject in private, they have emerged with sometimes widely varying interpretations about whether she would support a prospective deal, according to interviews with more than 10 influential donors and fundraising operatives.

Clinton’s private responses in some ways resemble a foreign policy Rorschach test; donors who see a deal as important to world peace have come away thinking that Clinton shares their perspective, but so, too, do donors who oppose any prospective agreement as compromising Israeli security.

Publicly, she’s expressed support for the negotiating process, which she secretly initiated during her time as secretary of state, but has also said “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

Well, this is easy enough for her, isn’t it? After all, being better than Obama to Israel is not much of a commitment.

Bad Signs at the Hillary Announcement

It’s not such a big problem for the Hillary Clinton campaign that Hillary Clinton isn’t really loved. She could still win. The problem for the campaign is that it is resting its fate on everyone showing the love anyway. What Clinton strategists are doing is trying to replicate the Obama strategy, which eschewed the usual move… Continue Reading

Strassel: The Clinton-Operative Employment Foundation

The Clinton Foundation charity operated acted as a de facto employment assistance program for Hillary Clinton’s once and future political advisors and should be investigated by the IRS for potentially violating charitable organization rules, according to a piece by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel. Strassel cites a long list of Clinton operatives who were… Continue Reading