For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[MaxThreshold]

I don't want a Democrat in the White House, not especially. I want a centrist. All of the Republicans are too far to the right. Hillary, like Obama before her, occupies the center. Right now she's parroting some of that Warren nonsense and that would concern me except I know she can't do anything about it even if she wanted to.

But what bothers me the most about this upcoming election, so much that it's starting to outweigh everything else, is that more and more I'm starting to fear that the Republicans are going to push us into a war with Iran. Hillary, who helped construct Obama's policy with Iran, will continue us on our current approach. For me, that's decisive.

Is that what you call that disaster?

The problem with you Tim is you think anyone remotely right of center is "too far to the right". And when you talk about wanting a centrist what you really mean is you want: first a Democrat and second a Democrat left of center.

And the problem with you is that you make a lot of assumptions without knowing much. I voted for Romney last time around. If you nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, I'll consider them (depending on what they say about Iran). But nobody else.

Well, if it's up to me it would be Walker or Rubio.

I DO NOT want another bush in the WH. Chris Christie has run his course too.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I don't want a Democrat in the White House, not especially. I want a centrist. All of the Republicans are too far to the right. Hillary, like Obama before her, occupies the center. Right now she's parroting some of that Warren nonsense and that would concern me except I know she can't do anything about it even if she wanted to.

But what bothers me the most about this upcoming election, so much that it's starting to outweigh everything else, is that more and more I'm starting to fear that the Republicans are going to push us into a war with Iran. Hillary, who helped construct Obama's policy with Iran, will continue us on our current approach. For me, that's decisive.

Whether you like Obama or his policies or not, he delivered what he promised.

The only thing I will say about Hillary running for President is I hope I don't have to leave the country.

 

[tommyboy]

I don't want a Democrat in the White House, not especially. I want a centrist. All of the Republicans are too far to the right. Hillary, like Obama before her, occupies the center. Right now she's parroting some of that Warren nonsense and that would concern me except I know she can't do anything about it even if she wanted to.

But what bothers me the most about this upcoming election, so much that it's starting to outweigh everything else, is that more and more I'm starting to fear that the Republicans are going to push us into a war with Iran. Hillary, who helped construct Obama's policy with Iran, will continue us on our current approach. For me, that's decisive.

Is that what you call that disaster?

The problem with you Tim is you think anyone remotely right of center is "too far to the right". And when you talk about wanting a centrist what you really mean is you want: first a Democrat and second a Democrat left of center.

And the problem with you is that you make a lot of assumptions without knowing much. I voted for Romney last time around. If you nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, I'll consider them (depending on what they say about Iran). But nobody else.

what about Walker, he's successfully run a state.

 

[timschochet]

I don't want a Democrat in the White House, not especially. I want a centrist. All of the Republicans are too far to the right. Hillary, like Obama before her, occupies the center. Right now she's parroting some of that Warren nonsense and that would concern me except I know she can't do anything about it even if she wanted to.

But what bothers me the most about this upcoming election, so much that it's starting to outweigh everything else, is that more and more I'm starting to fear that the Republicans are going to push us into a war with Iran. Hillary, who helped construct Obama's policy with Iran, will continue us on our current approach. For me, that's decisive.

Is that what you call that disaster?

The problem with you Tim is you think anyone remotely right of center is "too far to the right". And when you talk about wanting a centrist what you really mean is you want: first a Democrat and second a Democrat left of center.

And the problem with you is that you make a lot of assumptions without knowing much. I voted for Romney last time around. If you nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, I'll consider them (depending on what they say about Iran). But nobody else.

what about Walker, he's successfully run a state.

I think he'll be the nominee. But I disagree with him on too many issues. And based on his rhetoric, I think that he will lead us into a war with Iran.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

 

[shadrap]

Well, I would like Bill. I thought he was an excellent President. But I doubt those on the left would want him. He represents everything they don't like.

That's a bunch of bull. Everytime Bill pops his head out the door you guys on the left cream your pants. You can play this "Hillary is qualified for President" nonsense, but the reality is that you just want Bill back in the WH. It's always been about Bill. You think you can recapture the glory.

I got some bad news for you - Hillary is NOT going to get you that glory.

Easy Max, easy.

 

[Rove!]

Stevens was begging for more security and they kept reducing security

Not true. Don't repeat lies like this found on the right wing blogosphere. It makes you look silly.

so ABC News is the the right wing blogosphere now?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/

 

[timschochet]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Just because I want to, you know, spend time with her doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for her.

 

[shadrap]

I actually think that there is someone who cares more about us than themselves. The guys & their families that died for our freedom would puke right now with the state of affairs in politics.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Just because I want to, you know, spend time with her doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for her.

We all know you are voting for her and your wife must be a damn ugly skank if you're getting off to Hillary. Now.....get back to your thread.

 

[shadrap]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Just because I want to, you know, spend time with her doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for her.

We all know you are voting for her and your wife must be a damn ugly skank if you're getting off to Hillary. Now.....get back to your thread.

Way over the top. To personal. Keep that stuff inside. IMO.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Just because I want to, you know, spend time with her doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for her.

We all know you are voting for her and your wife must be a damn ugly skank if you're getting off to Hillary. Now.....get back to your thread.

Way over the top. To personal. Keep that stuff inside. IMO.

You haven't seen all of the love Tim has professed for her.

 

[urbanhack]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Your stalker mode with Tim is reaching Strikes level.

 

[rct]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Just because I want to, you know, spend time with her doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for her.

We all know you are voting for her and your wife must be a damn ugly skank if you're getting off to Hillary.

Sick puppy.

 

[joffer]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Your stalker mode with Tim is reaching Strikes level.

and we know how that ended...

 

[Mister CIA]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Just because I want to, you know, spend time with her doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for her.

We all know you are voting for her and your wife must be a damn ugly skank if you're getting off to Hillary. Now.....get back to your thread.

It's obvious what part of the pond you represent.

 

[tommyboy]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

Here's the story

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/was-hillary-running-a-secret-intel-network/

 

[Stinger Ray]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Your stalker mode with Tim is reaching Strikes level.

I suggest you check my post count in his thread.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tim....just shut the #### up. There is not one Repubican that may run that you'd vote for. Your love of Hillary is well known.

Your stalker mode with Tim is reaching Strikes level.

I suggest you check my post count in his thread.

I suggest you chill out a bit. Insulting someone's family because you disagree with their politics is about as ###### as it gets.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Dragging tim's wife into this is way over the top and completely uncool. That woman should be in our thoughts and prayers, not subjected to our ridicule.

 

[Stinger Ray]

My apologies to Tim. It was wrong.

 

[timschochet]

My wife is beautiful and fetching, and she understands my feelings about Hillary and isn't jealous in the least.

 

[jon_mx]

My wife is beautiful and fetching, and she understands my feelings about Hillary and isn't jealous in the least.

Yeah, but how does Obama feel?

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

My wife is beautiful and fetching, and she understands my feelings about Hillary and isn't jealous in the least.

Yeah, but how does Obama feel?

Firm but supple. A little bit of give in all the right places.

 

[timschochet]

My wife is beautiful and fetching, and she understands my feelings about Hillary and isn't jealous in the least.

Yeah, but how does Obama feel?

How would I know? Never met the man.

 

[jon_mx]

My wife is beautiful and fetching, and she understands my feelings about Hillary and isn't jealous in the least.

Yeah, but how does Obama feel?

How would I know? Never met the man.

Obama lurks here. He knows how you felt about him and he can see those feelings drifting towards Hillary. It's got to hurt.

 

[timschochet]

My wife is beautiful and fetching, and she understands my feelings about Hillary and isn't jealous in the least.

Yeah, but how does Obama feel?

How would I know? Never met the man.

Obama lurks here. He knows how you felt about him and he can see those feelings drifting towards Hillary. It's got to hurt.

He'll still got you right?

 

[jon_mx]

My wife is beautiful and fetching, and she understands my feelings about Hillary and isn't jealous in the least.

Yeah, but how does Obama feel?

How would I know? Never met the man.

Obama lurks here. He knows how you felt about him and he can see those feelings drifting towards Hillary. It's got to hurt.

He'll still got you right?

My support for Obama is unwavering.

 

[timschochet]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

Here's the storyhttp://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/was-hillary-running-a-secret-intel-network/

Thanks for posting this. I read it but I'm unimpressed, just as I was unimpressed with the supposed warnings the Bush administration received before 9/11. It was no secret that Libya was a volatile situation. The Obama administration made a calculated decision that either increasing security there or pulling the ambassador out would have been deemed as provocative and might have invited attack. I probably would have reached the same conclusion. As to the Blumenthat emails stuff, it's a bunch of conspiracy irrelevant nonsense IMO.

 

[RCon]

"The Obama"? Is that sort of like "in the Annapolis"?

 

[timschochet]

"The Obama"? Is that sort of like "in the Annapolis"?

iPhone - corrected it

 

[tommyboy]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

Here's the storyhttp://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/was-hillary-running-a-secret-intel-network/

Thanks for posting this. I read it but I'm unimpressed, just as I was unimpressed with the supposed warnings the Bush administration received before 9/11. It was no secret that Libya was a volatile situation. The Obama administration made a calculated decision that either increasing security there or pulling the ambassador out would have been deemed as provocative and might have invited attack. I probably would have reached the same conclusion.As to the Blumenthat emails stuff, it's a bunch of conspiracy irrelevant nonsense IMO.

does this matter?

by Andrew C. McCarthy February 26, 2015 4:13 PM

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility.

These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives.

At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously. At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials. About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related:

15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is.

At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire. At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli” Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it,

Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack. I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m. — minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony.

The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony.

As I’ve also previously detailed (see here and here), Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi. Hicks added that he was clear in his briefing and other communications with his superiors that the Benghazi operation was a terrorist attack. Indeed, at the time he briefed Clinton, the pressing concern was that Ambassador Stevens might then be being held at a hospital that was under the control of terrorists. An hour later, at 9 p.m., Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. At 12:11 a.m., about two hours after the issuance of Secretary Clinton’s statement suggesting that the video had prompted the violence, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff, e-mailed State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to ask, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one is hanging out there.” This appears to be a suggestion that the State Department allow Secretary Clinton’s statement stand alone as the department’s narrative for the media. At the time, the attack was still ongoing and there were still press inquiries about Ambassador Stevens’s whereabouts and well-being.

The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414500/hillary-clintons-top-aides-knew-first-minutes-benghazi-was-terrorist-attack-e-mails

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation

The Clinton Foundation reportedly accepted millions of dollars from a Colombian oil company head before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to support a trade deal with Colombia despite worries of human rights violations.

The report in the International Business Times comes as Clinton readies an expected run for president. She’s been dogged by questions about whether foreign donations to her foundations could have influenced her official decisions.

The report centers on donations from Frank Giustra and the oil company that he founded, Pacific Rubiales. In a Wall Street Journal story from 2008, Giustra is described as a “friend and traveling companion” of former President Clinton who donated more than $130 million to Clinton’s philanthropies. He’s also a Clinton Foundation board member and has participated in projects and benefits for the foundation.

When workers at Pacific Rubiales decided to strike in 2011, the Columbian military reportedly used force to stop the strikes and compel them to return to work, IBT reports, citing the Washington office of Latin America, a human rights group. Those accusations of human rights violations were part of the criticism of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Promotion Agreement, which was passed by Congress later that year. Pacific Rubiales has repeatedly denied charges that it infringed on workers’ rights.

On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary Clinton, along with then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, opposed the deal as a raw deal for workers, according to IBT. The pair changed their tune after the election and publicly supported the trade agreement. As secretary of State, Clinton’s State Department certified annually that Colombia was “meeting statutory criteria related to human rights.”

The deal had originally been negotiated by the administration of former President George W. Bush, and the Obama administration won changes on labor and environmental issues not included in the original deal.

Just months after Congress approved the agreement, IBT reported, Giustra helped raise $1 million for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, supported by Pacific Rubiales.

As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations

For union organizers in Colombia, the dangers of their trade were intensifying. When workers at the country’s largest independent oil company staged a strike in 2011, the Colombian military rounded them up at gunpoint and threatened violence if they failed to disband, according to human rights organizations. Similar intimidation tactics against the workers, say labor leaders, amounted to an everyday feature of life.

For the United States, these were precisely the sorts of discomfiting accounts that were supposed to be prevented in Colombia under a labor agreement that accompanied a recently signed free trade pact liberalizing the exchange of goods between the countries. From Washington to Bogota, leaders had promoted the pact as a win for all -- a deal that would at once boost trade while strengthening the rights of embattled Colombian labor organizers. That formulation had previously drawn skepticism from many prominent Democrats, among them Hillary Clinton.

Yet as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.

At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.

The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra. ...

The article is long but it's worth reading. Basically this is quid pro quo.

Also I'm not sure if the article mentions it but that CEO for the Canadian corporation discussed above is now on the Board for the Clinton Foundation.

I heard this discussed on NPR this morning.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

Here's the storyhttp://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/was-hillary-running-a-secret-intel-network/

Thanks for posting this. I read it but I'm unimpressed, just as I was unimpressed with the supposed warnings the Bush administration received before 9/11. It was no secret that Libya was a volatile situation. The Obama administration made a calculated decision that either increasing security there or pulling the ambassador out would have been deemed as provocative and might have invited attack. I probably would have reached the same conclusion.As to the Blumenthat emails stuff, it's a bunch of conspiracy irrelevant nonsense IMO.

What is the "conspiracy" being alleged? Pro Publica is not a conservative group of any kind. Neither is Gawker. No one has alleged any conspiracy, Tim, these from the only Hillary emails that have been made public and they were hacked.

Here are Hillary's actual emails. She's not an anti-Hillary conservative.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1697077-3.html#document/p4

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1697077-3.html#document/p5

"It was no secret that Libya was a volatile situation." - Well you just conceded the point, our people should not have been there. Same thing just happened in Sa'naa in Yemen under Kerry by the way, it's no different and no better except that our people did not get slaughtered, thank God.

 

[timschochet]

Saints just because the situation is volatile doesn't mean our people shouldn't be there. Typically our state department has a presence everywhere and there can be great risks. I think someone in the Benghazi thread (it might have been me!) posted a long list of all of our embassies and consulates that have been attacked over the years during Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., etc. These things happen( it's a risk we take. (Even Nixon as VP was almost assassinated in South America during an anti-American riot there; he barely escaped.)

 

[BigSteelThrill]

First line....

Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilitiesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States maintains numerous embassies and consulates around the world, many of which are in war-torn countries or other dangerous areas.

 

[timschochet]

And Saints, as far as Hillary's foundation and your claim of quid pro quo, it's a pretty tenuous charge. Money flows in to that organization from all over the world. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was not a unilateral power as Secretary of State. Whenever there were drcisions to be made there are position papers, assistant secretaries, ambassadors and diplomats of all sorts to discuss and debate. I don't know the details of this particular decision (or change of decision) but I am extremely skeptical that one thing (contributions to the foundation) had anything to do with the other (changes in policy).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints just because the situation is volatile doesn't mean our people shouldn't be there. Typically our state department has a presence everywhere and there can be great risks. I think someone in the Benghazi thread (it might have been me!) posted a long list of all of our embassies and consulates that have been attacked over the years during Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., etc. These things happen( it's a risk we take. (Even Nixon as VP was almost assassinated in South America during an anti-American riot there; he barely escaped.)

One memo was sent on August 23, 2012, less than three weeks before Islamic militants stormed the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. It cites “an extremely sensitive source” who highlighted a string of bombings and kidnappings of foreign diplomats and aid workers in Tripoli, Benghazi and Misrata, suggesting they were the work of people loyal to late Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.

While the memo doesn’t rise to the level of a warning about the safety of U.S. diplomats, it portrays a deteriorating security climate. Clinton noted a few days after the Benghazi attack, which left four dead and 10 people injured, that U.S. intelligence officials didn’t have advance knowledge of the threat.

That's from Pro Publica. - Why did Hillary deny advance knowledge of the threat then?

 

[timschochet]

And throughout all of these accusations about the foundation, has anyone ever provided evidence that the money is being channelled somehow in ways it's not supposed to? From everything I've read, all monies are used for helping with disasters around the world, for fighting for women's rights and children's rights, and combating epidemic diseases. And my understanding is that it's all transparent and the books are completely open. So where's the conspiracy?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And Saints, as far as Hillary's foundation and your claim of quid pro quo, it's a pretty tenuous charge. Money flows in to that organization from all over the world. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was not a unilateral power as Secretary of State. Whenever there were drcisions to be made there are position papers, assistant secretaries, ambassadors and diplomats of all sorts to discuss and debate. I don't know the details of this particular decision (or change of decision) but I am extremely skeptical that one thing (contributions to the foundation) had anything to do with the other (changes in policy).

Read the article, Tim: "Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And throughout all of these accusations about the foundation, has anyone ever provided evidence that the money is being channelled somehow in ways it's not supposed to? From everything I've read, all monies are used for helping with disasters around the world, for fighting for women's rights and children's rights, and combating epidemic diseases. And my understanding is that it's all transparent and the books are completely open. So where's the conspiracy?

Tim, do you realize that using a non-profit's funds for private use do not require a conspiracy?

 

[timschochet]

Saints just because the situation is volatile doesn't mean our people shouldn't be there. Typically our state department has a presence everywhere and there can be great risks. I think someone in the Benghazi thread (it might have been me!) posted a long list of all of our embassies and consulates that have been attacked over the years during Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., etc. These things happen( it's a risk we take. (Even Nixon as VP was almost assassinated in South America during an anti-American riot there; he barely escaped.)

One memo was sent on August 23, 2012, less than three weeks before Islamic militants stormed the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. It cites an extremely sensitive source who highlighted a string of bombings and kidnappings of foreign diplomats and aid workers in Tripoli, Benghazi and Misrata, suggesting they were the work of people loyal to late Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.

While the memo doesnt rise to the level of a warning about the safety of U.S. diplomats, it portrays a deteriorating security climate. Clinton noted a few days after the Benghazi attack, which left four dead and 10 people injured, that U.S. intelligence officials didnt have advance knowledge of the threat.

That's from Pro Publica. - Why did Hillary deny advance knowledge of the threat then?

Probably for the same reason that Condi Rice denied advanced knowledge of 9/11- because every day there are dozens of memos warning of this or that, predicting this or that, and most of them are vague, so it's easy to point a single one after the fact. I strongly doubt Hillary thought Benghazi was as safe as Geneva or London.

 

[timschochet]

And throughout all of these accusations about the foundation, has anyone ever provided evidence that the money is being channelled somehow in ways it's not supposed to? From everything I've read, all monies are used for helping with disasters around the world, for fighting for women's rights and children's rights, and combating epidemic diseases. And my understanding is that it's all transparent and the books are completely open. So where's the conspiracy?

Tim, do you realize that using a non-profit's funds for private use do not require a conspiracy?

it requires evidence. And when you don't have that evidence but make the charge anyhow, then it becomes a conspiracy.

 

[timschochet]

And Saints, as far as Hillary's foundation and your claim of quid pro quo, it's a pretty tenuous charge. Money flows in to that organization from all over the world. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was not a unilateral power as Secretary of State. Whenever there were drcisions to be made there are position papers, assistant secretaries, ambassadors and diplomats of all sorts to discuss and debate. I don't know the details of this particular decision (or change of decision) but I am extremely skeptical that one thing (contributions to the foundation) had anything to do with the other (changes in policy).

Read the article, Tim: "Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact."

i know what it says; what does it mean? What does "abruptly" mean? Are there state department officials willing to testify that she did an about face without notice or justification?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And throughout all of these accusations about the foundation, has anyone ever provided evidence that the money is being channelled somehow in ways it's not supposed to? From everything I've read, all monies are used for helping with disasters around the world, for fighting for women's rights and children's rights, and combating epidemic diseases. And my understanding is that it's all transparent and the books are completely open. So where's the conspiracy?

Tim, do you realize that using a non-profit's funds for private use do not require a conspiracy?

it requires evidence. And when you don't have that evidence but make the charge anyhow, then it becomes a conspiracy.

That's inaccurate, non-profits channel money for private use all the time, with and without conspiracies. I don't think you know what that word means actually.

First of all the Foundation does not reveal its donor names with the amounts given.

Nine donors gave a combined $64 million to the foundation, according to the forms. Their names are blacked out, the AP reports, as the foundation is not required to list its donors. The AP notes that the foundation does reveal its donors but not the amount each has given.

Over $8 million was used in travel, which is roughly 10% of its total expenses, and the Foundation has acknowledged that some of that money has gone to travel for the Clintons'.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/224816-donations-to-clinton-foundation-tripled-last-year

Basically if this was a non-profit for a mayor and it was receiving donations from vendors for the city and then using that money on the mayor then yeah there would probably an investigation tout suite.

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow Saints there are all sorts of accountants and others working at that foundation and the monies spent there are all reported and recorded. So yeah if funds were ever diverted, it would have to involve a whole bunch of people lying and covering up and willing to go to jail for the Clintons. So yes that would be a conspiracy.

 

[timschochet]

Wait- so because the Foundation doesn't break down travel expenses that's your proof that something shady is going on?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anyhow Saints there are all sorts of accountants and others working at that foundation and the monies spent there are all reported and recorded. So yeah if funds were ever diverted, it would have to involve a whole bunch of people lying and covering up and willing to go to jail for the Clintons. So yes that would be a conspiracy.

That has happened before, see the McDougals.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait- so because the Foundation doesn't break down travel expenses that's your proof that something shady is going on?

The Foundation likely does break down expenses, but they have not been subpoenaed. Basically you're questions have to do with the lack of investigation. But to say the Foundation is transparent is inaccurate. $8.4 million has been used on travel and no it's not clear that the money spent on the Clintons' travel has not been for personal or campaign benefit.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And Saints, as far as Hillary's foundation and your claim of quid pro quo, it's a pretty tenuous charge. Money flows in to that organization from all over the world. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was not a unilateral power as Secretary of State. Whenever there were drcisions to be made there are position papers, assistant secretaries, ambassadors and diplomats of all sorts to discuss and debate. I don't know the details of this particular decision (or change of decision) but I am extremely skeptical that one thing (contributions to the foundation) had anything to do with the other (changes in policy).

Read the article, Tim: "Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact."

i know what it says; what does it mean? What does "abruptly" mean? Are there state department officials willing to testify that she did an about face without notice or justification?

After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.”

Giustra and Bill Clinton reportedly first met in 2005, at a fundraiser for tsunami victims held at Giustra’s home in Canada. They quickly became jet-setting friends. That year, as Giustra was on his way to becoming one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest individual donors, an aide to Bill Clinton arranged an introduction between Giustra and the then-president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, the Wall Street Journal reported. After the meeting, Uribe moved to begin privatizing his country’s state-owned oil company, Ecopetrol. Pacific Rubiales soon expanded its operations in Colombia in partnership with Ecopetrol, which was still being overseen by Uribe.

Giustra’s connections to Pacific Rubiales proved fruitful for the Clintons when in 2007 the oil giant became one of the first donors to a venture between Giustra and Bill Clinton. In a Pacific Rubiales news release quoting Giustra, the company announced that it was joining with its financial backers to give $4.4 million to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP).

During the 2008 presidential campaign, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declared their unequivocal opposition to the deal, with the latter saying there should be “no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country.” She pledged that year to “do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement." Yet within a year of becoming secretary of state, Clinton visited Colombia, saying she was there to “underscore President Obama's and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement.”

Volk declined to tell IBTimes the total amount Pacific Rubiales contributed to the Clinton Foundation or to the CGEP.

The State Department’s 2012 declaration, published just a few months after Bill Clinton golfed with Pacific Rubiales’ president at the company’s golf tournament, also asserted that the Colombian “government generally continued to respect and recognize the important role of human rights defenders.”

In early 2012, CGEP was the main beneficiary of Pacific Rubiales’ golf tournament in Bogota, which raised $1 million for the Clinton-Giustra venture. Then in April 2012, the Obama administration certified Colombia as respecting labor rights, cementing the trade pact into law.

So to answer your question, "abruptly" means within at most 4 months of receiving the money the administration certified the pact.