Skip to main content

"Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer said the Clintons are starting a brand new political action committee in the wake of Hillary Clinton's election loss.

Schweizer said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that the Clintons feel they must always be relevant in the Democratic Party and that their political allies need "a place to hang their hat."

"If they can't be king, they want to be kingmakers," he said.

Schweizer said the organization will be a 501c4 group that can take unlimited donations from people whose identities do not have to be disclosed.

Carlson called it a "sad version of the Grateful Dead."

Schweizer said the Clinton Global Initiative is defunct and that the Clinton Foundation is hurting badly because the Clintons no longer hold formal political power.

Schweizer said 2017 is the first year Clintons have not been in the political arena since 1992.

"There's not a lot of reason for people to give them money," he said.

Desperation met stupidity on the corner of bad luck and despair, and the democratic party was born.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Let's see ... An end to the Clinton foundation, as we know it, given the political turmoil and justice department heat around it, along with a potential unlimited source of additional (undocumented) money with no accountability on how it's raised or gained or even spent or saved and sure financial increase for the Clinton family under the guise of charitable donations.  How could this one not be foreseen as a foregone conclusion.

What I am amazed at is the boldness of doing so, so soon after the election where a new, potentially political hostile, justice department could reasonably go after the Clintons still for the Clinton foundation.  Then again with the media whipped up in the anti Trump frenzy that they are they would surely come to the Clinton's defense and seek to deter any additional actions against them no matter what merit there may be.

We might as well get used to it as the Clintons are still political viable as long as certain Democratic leadership is in power.  It could be argued though that the political advantages that the Clintons hold within the Democratic party took a huge hit in the last election with the revelations that Wikileaks produced showing the inner workings of the party, under Clinton's leadership and direction in steamrolling Bernie Sanders.  It's highly possible that there will now be a fight for leadership within the Democratic party to attempt to control the future direction.  

Last edited by gbrk

The middle eastern countries pulled their financial support, and there were rumors they even asked for their money back, when she lost. Without her and their Muslim shill Huma in the WH to do them favors and feed them info they had no reason to pay her any longer. I'm sure that will change on down the road if and when she gets in the position to be of use to them again.

Last edited by giftedamateur

The current scandal du jour is that Trump gave the Russkis classified info.  To be exact, the ISIS plans for hiding a bomb in a laptop. Guess even Aeroflot passengers don't deserve to be blown out of the air. The Director of National Intelligence said that the info wasn't classified.  

Never mind, that the last maladministration outed Dr. Afridi, who helped catch bin Laden.  Dr. Afridi is now in a Pakistani prison and his family in hiding.  Or, that Joe Biden let slip that SEAL team six were the raiders. Which resulted in a planned revenge attack that killed 15 US military, including about six members of the SEAL team.  Or, the Chelsea Manning, who exposed thousands of classified documents, is now out of prison.  Obama commuted he/she's sentence from 35 years to about 7 years. 

well, the 'scandal du jour' has a special counsel.... it sure is funny how the republicon's spin the leak when it comes from the current potus... so, just to be clear, in your post.....

it's perfectly fine for trump to leak secrets because well, it was over top secret and now, it's not and...

well, everybody else is doing it, or so my media outlet that i trust tells me they are...

and obama commuted a sentence for a guy who leaked secrets to wikileaks... and wikileaks was the republicon hero in october, but now you're mad at them.

and in october, the republicon line was 'who cares where the leaks came from, look at what's in them'... and now.. 'we've got to prosecute the leaker... who cares what the leaks say.'

pardon me, but you hypocrisy is showing much worse than i thought... and putting politics above country is gonna really hurt in the midterms.

i mean... in all honesty... if some intern woulda just given trump a BJ, republicons woulda been all over it. instead, we've learned that treason is a lesser reason to investigate, to a republicon.

please tell me more about the unamerican demoslops... from the mouth of america hating republicons. actions speak louder than words.

Last edited by Crash.Override
Crash.Override posted:

please tell me more about the unamerican demoslops... from the mouth of america hating republicons. actions speak louder than words.

Don't try to flip the "America hating" to conservatives when we started
it for you, and you have all the different T shirts, lies, fake news, and
most important, the actions in every state...
---------
Crash.Override posted:
i mean... in all honesty... if some intern woulda just given trump a BJ, republicons woulda been all over it. instead, we've learned that treason is a lesser reason to investigate, to a republicon.
 
I know you hated for that to have actually happened, a very real
and deserving IMPEACHMENT of a piece of wad American hating
one world order child abuser/rapist. Live and own it. 
 
giftedamateur posted:

"Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer said the Clintons are starting a brand new political action committee in the wake of Hillary Clinton's election loss.

Schweizer said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that the Clintons feel they must always be relevant in the Democratic Party and that their political allies need "a place to hang their hat."

"If they can't be king, they want to be kingmakers," he said.

Schweizer said the organization will be a 501c4 group that can take unlimited donations from people whose identities do not have to be disclosed.

Carlson called it a "sad version of the Grateful Dead."

Schweizer said the Clinton Global Initiative is defunct and that the Clinton Foundation is hurting badly because the Clintons no longer hold formal political power.

Schweizer said 2017 is the first year Clintons have not been in the political arena since 1992.

"There's not a lot of reason for people to give them money," he said.

Oh yes. The so called "champion" of women's and children's rights put on her hijab and went the misogynist countries and got her some of that good old muzzie money. I'm sure her main munch, darling of the muzzie brotherhood, huma, went with her.

 

Last edited by Bestworking

What is news anymore?  When you have "old standard" publications like the New York Times and Washington Post creating stories based solely in rumor or statements from unidentified and unsubstantiated sources then it's difficult to believe anything anymore.  It seems today that the only pre-requisite for a good and valid news story is that it be anti-Trump. 

Here to date there has been zero evidence brought forth from any of the many investigations that there was any collusion between Trump, Trump's campaign and any third party from any other Nation, including Russia.   The ONLY proven and demonstrated manipulation of the Campaign that has yet been revealed is of the Clinton campaign with regards to things that would give her an advantage over Bernie Sanders.  

I can't remember from where I have heard this or read it in the past but one statement that was made regarding of the taking over of a Nation was to capture and control the media outlets and the outlets that dissimilate information to the public.  By controlling that information the public, or most of them, could be misled and controlled to some point.

In our nation today the media is, for the most part, entirely controlled and managed by liberals who have no problem implementing their agenda through the media's reporting or selections of what stories make the news and what ones don't.   There has been unprecedented, high 90%, negative reporting regarding Donald Trump and it appears a determined and uniform agreement to actively try and overthrow the Government by attacking the President.   One only has to listen to a montage  of various press reports about Donald Trump and it's evident that there is collusion between the various competing media outlets to sway public opinion.  It matters not what media outlet you listen to they all seem to be reading from the same page and using the same key words, with respect to the President and various stories.   In some cases it is a determined attempt to use exactly the same terminology so as to attempt to create a story rather than report on one and in every case it's negative to the President and a concerted attempt to make him appear as inept or deviously deceptive. 

To me it seems that the only collusion that exist out there to affect an election is that between the Democrats and most media outlets to overthrow an elected President.   When you think about it there has never been such a defeat in history.  You have a candidate that has spent more money and received extremely positive press reporting and almost every other advantage that would enable them to win an election, down to receiving information about upcoming debate questions beforehand, yet they get beat by a previously non-political candidate whom received unprecedented negative press coverage prior to the election.   You had just about every possible thing benefiting Hillary Clinton and pushing for her election including polls that highly favored her yet in the end she lost.  It surely must have been truly devastating for her given every advantage she had.  I'm sure she was told all along that she had it in the bag which is why her true character came out in the end when she skipped many states all together. 

Hillary was a person that, according to most that knew her intimately, was a person that felt she was above everyone else and tolerated others around her only for her own political benefit.  She held most all of America in contempt and was actually caught making a truthful admission when she called over 50% of Americans deplorable.  She meant this and was as truthful of a statement as she ever made to reflect that which she actually thought.  Hillary felt truly entitled to the job of President and felt it was not only promised to her but that it was hers in waiting and given every advantage she was, before the election, was sure of the outcome up and until the actual votes started coming in. 

Naturally she was so devastated that she was inconsolable and unable to speak to her supporters.  This was the job that was hers, promised to her, that she was sure she was going to get.  Only to have to face being defeated by a non-politician whom everyone loathed or so she thought.  Donald Trump, those who voted for him, and most all other Americans were beneath her and yet all this that was hers for the taking suddenly was yanked away.

The story, alluded to in the above subject line, may well be false but given the family and what they have done in the past one could easily believe it was true.  Trouble is that there is a huge amount of fake, false, news out there coming from both sides and negative toward both sides.  There may have been a day when a news media outlet pledged to report the news in an impartial way but that day is truly history and today's media world is one where it's apparently justified to base a story on rumor or speculation provided that rumor or speculation meets certain qualifications, one being that it is negative toward the current elected President.  Likewise it's equally as tempting for far right leaning organizations to scoop up and report on Hillary Clinton.   Still it's hard to defend Clinton when you have certain proven things like Bill Clinton's meeting with the former Attorney General right before Hillary met with the FBI in a meeting and questioning where she was neither put under oath and was then given a clean bill of political health by the FBI director after he read a list of indictable things Hillary was known to have done.  She was given her freedom in one ridiculous statement, by the Director, "that no reasonable prosecutor would go after her" thus the FBI wasn't going to recommend indictment.  So fake news is so easy to believe given the absurd real news surrounding the Clintons and the past election.

after the new 110billion$ arms deal, freshly signed by trump... saudi's agree to give 100 million to trump's daughter's new charity. i can't seem to find where the republicons are condemning this action? can someone show me a link?

and since trump said the saudi's were behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks... wouldn't that mean trump and the republicons are arming the terrorists... isn't this the kinda stuff you rt. wingnuts accused obama of doing? where's the link to the topic full of republicon outrage over trump's actions? could someone show me that topic, please?

Last edited by Crash.Override

after the new 110billion$ arms deal, freshly signed by trump... saudi's agree to give 100 million to trump's daughter's new charity. i can't seem to find where the republicons are condemning this action? can someone show me a link?

============

Where did you come up with the link in the first place, can you show

a link..??

What really happened:

"Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are donating $100 million to a women's empowerment fund proposed by Ivanka Trump, President Donald Trump's elder daughter and a senior White House adviser.

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim announced the contribution to the World Bank Women Entrepreneurs Fund at a meeting in Riyadh between Ivanka Trump and 15 Saudi women Sunday, during the president's trip to Saudi Arabia.

Ivanka Trump helped inspire the fund, which will be led by the World Bank. Early reports had suggested she would take a more active fundraising role, but it was later reported that she would not be directly involved in raising funds or deciding how the money would be spent."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...c1d9e4b034684b0d17a1

Got that, Ivanka proposed the fund, but will not run it.  Take up your gripes with the World Bank which will run it.

Kraven posted:

after the new 110billion$ arms deal, freshly signed by trump... saudi's agree to give 100 million to trump's daughter's new charity. i can't seem to find where the republicons are condemning this action? can someone show me a link?

============

Where did you come up with the link in the first place, can you show

a link..??

Plenty of time for a link even for a snotty face hypocrite commie.

Here's more about it:

Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. Pledge $100 Million to World Bank’s Women Entrepreneurs Fund

Donation announced at event with Ivanka Trump, an advocate for businesswomen who proposed the fund

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—The World Bank announced Sunday at an event with Ivanka Trump, the U.S. president’s daughter and senior White House adviser, that Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have pledged a combined $100 million to a fund that will assist women entrepreneurs and small business owners.

“As a female leader within the Trump administration, my focus is to help empower women in the United States and around the globe,”

THE FAMILY -- "Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. Pledge $100 Million to World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund," by WSJ's Carol Lee in Riyadh: "[A]t an event with Ivanka Trump ... Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates [are pledging] $100 million collectively toward a fund for women who own or want to start businesses ... The money for the bank's proposed Women Entrepreneurs Fund would be aimed at women in the Middle East ... [T]he fund's goal [is] helping women start and run successful businesses by easing their access to finance, markets and networks." http://on.wsj.com/2rqaUVA

--------------------------------

It's the first time mocrash has witnessed transparency from
the Whitehome in eight years, that and actual help, big time
help, for the women it's earmarked for and not in the hilda
slush fund where 93% of all donations were hid and the thugs
got fat, cankled and dizzy........

“So Hillary thinks they are funding ISIS, but still takes their money. And you know their views on gays. And you know their views on women.”donald j. trump

“I think she should give back the $25 to $35 million she’s taken from Saudi Arabia,” he said. “And she should give it back fast.”  donald j. trump

Audience members began to chant, “Lock her up!”

june 16, 2016

While I can see how some could come to the conclusion that there was hypocrisy   there is one thing that should be considered regarding the two issues.  The HUGE difference between the Clinton foundation and  what happened here is that there is NO connection between Ivanka Trump (or other Trump family member) and where the money will be collected whereas the Clinton's controlled entirely what happened to the Clinton Foundation donations and they effectively went entirely to the family (aka The Clintons) except that which was actually donated or given away from the Foundation which was documented to be a very small percentage (amount).  

So on one hand all money given to the Clinton Foundation could eventually end up in the bank account of Bill, Hillary, Chelsea Clinton for whatever use they wanted to personally use it for.  With the World Bank Fund for Women the money is in, with, and deposited with the World Bank and the end account has absolutely NO connection what so ever with Ivanka Trump or any other Trump family member for that matter.  Actually that is a huge difference between the women's fund that was set up here and the Clinton Foundation which was a way to funnel money directly into the Clinton family bank account for their own personal use.  

If though the Woman's Fund donation had gone to a Trump fund or foundation that as controlled by one of the Trump kids or family, into a  Trump account, then you surely would have had a valid hypocritical example.  Given you seem to believe, though, that this is hypocritical let me ask, you, do you actually believe that the money donated to this cause goes into an account that Trump or any of his relatives or people, have any control over?   In other words do you believe that Donald Trump and/or His family control or have control over the World Bank?   The reason I ask is if you do then it can be understood your feeling that there is hypocrisy but if you believe, or know, such an association doesn't exist (between Trump and the World Bank) then how do you justify your accusation of Hypocrisy? 

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the complaint regarding the Clinton Foundation, and donations funneled through it, was that the Clinton's directly profited from it, that, for all practical purposes,  the money went into their personal bank account hence it could be seen as buying them out or a pay for play type favor arrangement.  This still could be prosecuted by the Justice Department but as it is Trump has stated there is no agenda of his Administration to do so, at this time.  

Last edited by gbrk

bud, i've addressed your flat out bs enough... you can defend the republicons actions any way you wish... a special council was appointed to get to the bottom of the scandal... trump put pressure on SEVERAL security chiefs to squash the investigation.. that alone is obstruction of justice. seems like you republicons are gonna back trump all the way to the impeachment hearings.

Crash.Override posted:

bud, i've addressed your flat out bs enough... you can defend the republicons actions any way you wish... a special council was appointed to get to the bottom of the scandal... trump put pressure on SEVERAL security chiefs to squash the investigation.. that alone is obstruction of justice. seems like you republicons are gonna back trump all the way to the impeachment hearings.

Yet you keep coming back.

The process will proceed as it should, the Clintons' example notwithstanding where evidence was / is overwhelming.  Here, the evidence has yet to be presented.

What's your problem?

 

Last edited by budsfarm
budsfarm posted:
Crash.Override posted:

republicons who obviously don't have a clue, yet think they have all the answers... what's your problem?

Those who vote for liars and against middle class blue collar jobs.  That may not provide all the answers, but I heading in the right direction.

Considering that if we stay the Barry Soetoro economic course, the CBO predicts another 10 Trillion will be added to the national debt  and that dems would rather furrin workers have jobs that were formerly American; I would say that you might be on to something.

  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...icit-trump.html?_r=0

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.../nafta-20-years-old-–-here-are-20-facts-show-how-it-destroying-economy

http://www.americanthinker.com...g_jobs_to_china.html

budsfarm posted:
Crash.Override posted:

republicons who obviously don't have a clue, yet think they have all the answers... what's your problem?

Those who vote for liars and against middle class blue collar jobs.  That may not provide all the answers, but I heading in the right direction.

can you name one republicon policy that ever benefited the middle class? just one? not a talking point.. one policy , created by republicons, that benefited the middle class. that's it. just one policy.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×