“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Saturday, January 06, 2018

Federal probe examines whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use by Clinton Foundation


Networks Refuse to Cover FBI Opening New Clinton Foundation Investigation

By Curtis Houck | January 5, 2018 12:37 PM EST


To the shock of no one (at least in the NewsBusters newsroom), the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored on Friday morning the stunning revelation that the Clinton Foundation is under FBI investigation for possible crimes while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

FNC’s Fox & Friends was the only cable or network morning show (ABC’s Good Morning AmericaCBS This Morning, CNN’s New Day, FNC’s Fox & Friends, MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and NBC’s Today) to confirm and cover the story, spending eight minutes and 50 seconds (minus teasers) on the Clinton Foundation.

The Hill’s John Solomon broke the story just after 8:30 p.m. Eastern, explaining right off the top that “[t]he Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State.”

Solomon revealed that FBI agents in Little Rock, Arkansas “have taken the lead in the investigation,” including the process of interviewing possible witnesses. He cited a source has having told him that the focus is whether Clinton sought to curry favor with possible donors in exchange for access to Clinton or favorable treatment by the government.
Here’s more from Solomon: 
The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.

One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.
In an update Friday morning, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill blasted the move as“disgraceful” and suggested that it was ordered without merit by the Trump administration to distract from the Russia investigation and Michael Wolff’s stunning new book.

After the morning shows, both CNN and The Washington Post confirmed Solomon's scoop. CNN Newsroom with John Berman and Poppy Harlow went live in the 10:00 a.m. hour to Justice correspondent Laura Jarrett following the publication of a CNN.com story by Jarrett and colleague Evan Perez.
In part, Jarrett told Berman and Harlow: 
A significant legal development here as CNN has now learned that federal authorities down in Arkansas are actively investigating the Clinton Family Foundation for corruption. A U.S. official tells me that the FBI and federal prosecutors there are digging into specifically whether foundation donors were improperly promised policy favors or some type of special access to Clinton while she was secretary of state in exchange for donations to the charity's coffers and coming whether tax laws were followed here.
The major broadcast networks had plenty of time for Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury book of Trump White House gossip, but no time for this bomshell. If any significant time is devoted to it, watch for the liberal media and friends like Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff  (Calif.) to slam the FBI before going back to suggesting any criticism of the FBI is un-American. 

Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of The Media Research Center)

52 comments:

  1. The answer is:

    YES and PLENTY

    Lock her up Lock her up LOCK HER UP. !!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So says the Draft Dodger that "Ripped Off" a bank using identity theft.

      Delete
  2. Remember, Draft Dodger Peterson, the last fellow to lead that chant ...

    Had to plead guilty to a felony.

    Be careful, Robert "Bank Fraudster" Peterson, you are not nearly as smart, or connected, as Lt Gen Flynn.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now now now Jack you know the former DISTRICT JUDGE signed off on that deal.

    All perfectly legal and my handprints were no where to be found.

    The Judge was quite praisworthy concerning it.

    "The banks ? The banks are KILLERS !!"

    Donald Trump

    Bank just got left with an unxollectible Credit card debt is all.

    Happens all the time.

    You are just jealous is all.

    Sad so sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert, he was paid with the proceeds of the fraud.

      That is what you told us.

      Your lawyer was a co-conspirator in your identity theft bank fraud.

      You claimed it was "payback", it was not.
      It was Theft by Fraud.

      Just admit to it, AGAIN, Robert "Identity Thief" Peterson.

      Want to read your previous admission of identity theft and bank fraud?


      Delete
    2. You are a sad, sad case Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      No doubt of that.

      Delete
  4. There was no felony commuted to plead guilty to.......just another unxollectible Credit card debt.

    You have doubtlessly had several yourself.

    Debtor's prisons went out long ago with Merry Olds England.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why use the name Benghazi Bob. Jack ?

      Everyone knows he was a LIAR.

      You must feel it fits your persona.

      And you are right there.

      It does.

      Delete
    2. Ciao

      It's after midnight and all is quiet in the house even the mouse.

      Delete
    3. You are confuse Draft Dodger Peterson.

      There was a Bagdad Bob, a historical figure.

      Benghazi Bob is a parody of you.



      Delete
  5. Lashing Out At Critics Trump DECLARES Himself A Genius

    Drudge Report

    He hasn't met Quirk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure Trump's water boy, Deuce, will confirm his genius. He got elected did he not? It demonstrates the genius of the American people as well.

      Delete
    2. Now you're thinking Ash.

      And here I thought you couldn't put two and two together.

      Delete
  6. .

    Newsbusters

    Good lord.

    What an idiotic article.

    1. The whole article centers on the fact that the Hill broke the story and FOX picked it up first and it was over an hour later before other media sources reported on it (if this claim is even true). So what? Do you really expect that Newsbusters will also report with high umbrage the next time any of these other news sources breaks a story and FOX lags behind in reporting it? I kind of doubt it.

    2. The story itself just isn't that big a deal. Numerous sources are now reporting that the FBI has been discreetly continuing its investigation of the Clinton Foundation for months now. They were investigating it last year, put it on hold as they approached the election and then picked it up again shortly after the election.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-doj-ramp-clinton-foundation-investigation/story?id=52171980

    All we need now is for Pineapple Boy to show up once again whining about the evil MSM.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong: This proves the MSM is unbiased, 95% negative or not.

      Delete
    2. .

      Well, I'm glad to see you are finally coming around, Doug. I guess there's always hope.

      It's a shame that 95% of the coverage has to be negative, but heck, it is Trump and the GOP they are talking about. What can you expect? Eh (as Ash would say).

      .
      .

      Delete
  7. .

    Conviction? Doubtful.

    Just as I have no problem with the Mueller investigation, I have no problem with the Clinton Foundation investigation. Let them run to conclusion.

    That said, I doubt either investigation will lead to convictions against the principals, Trump or the Clintons. These people have been playing the system for years and the system itself is rigged in their favor. The main problem in these cases is proving a quid pro quo and even more so intent (though every time Trump opens his mouth he seems to add more fuel to the circumstantial case for obstruction of justice).

    With regard to the Clinton Foundation investigation, given that Trump has been demanding she and it be investigated for weeks if not months, the new announcement and publicity about an ongoing investigations smacks of an attempt at distraction.

    I will start taking that investigation seriously when The Hill and FOX announce that a grand jury has been formed.

    On the Trump investigation, it's likely the worst case situation would require a political solution and the chances of getting an impeachment vote passed while the GOP controls all branches of government is pretty much nil.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Impeachment will be an Election issue in November.

      Delete
  8. .

    Clinton Crimes

    Just as the ill-fated GOP efforts to convict Clinton and the Obama administration for collusion on Benghazi, I suspect the same will happen on the Clinton Foundation investigation.

    If they want Clinton, they might be better served by following the money ($84 million) that was pooled from the states by the DNC and provided to the Clinton campaign. It obviously goes against the spirit of the campaign finance laws but even here there is a kicker. SCOTUS knew about the possibility of this happening but dismissed arguments when they were raised under the assumption 'naw, no one would ever do that' rendering a decision against the practice a clue that the SCOTUS majority is either ignorant, incompetent, or hypocritical.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  9. .

    Mapping a World From Hell

    76 Countries Are Now Involved in Washington’s War on Terror

    He left Air Force Two behind and, unannounced, “shrouded in secrecy,” flew on an unmarked C-17 transport plane into Bagram Air Base, the largest American garrison in Afghanistan. All news of his visit was embargoed until an hour before he was to depart the country.

    More than 16 years after an American invasion “liberated” Afghanistan, he was there to offer some good news to a U.S. troop contingent once again on the rise. Before a 40-foot American flag, addressing 500 American troops, Vice President Mike Pence praised them as “the world’s greatest force for good,” boasted that American air strikes had recently been “dramatically increased,” swore that their country was “here to stay,” and insisted that “victory is closer than ever before.” As an observer noted, however, the response of his audience was “subdued.” (“Several troops stood with their arms crossed or their hands folded behind their backs and listened, but did not applaud.”)

    Think of this as but the latest episode in an upside down geopolitical fairy tale, a grim, rather than Grimm, story for our age that might begin: Once upon a time -- in October 2001, to be exact -- Washington launched its war on terror. There was then just one country targeted, the very one where, a little more than a decade earlier, the U.S. had ended a long proxy war against the Soviet Union during which it had financed, armed, or backed an extreme set of Islamic fundamentalist groups, including a rich young Saudi by the name of Osama bin Laden.

    By 2001, in the wake of that war, which helped send the Soviet Union down the path to implosion, Afghanistan was largely (but not completely) ruled by the Taliban. Osama bin Laden was there, too, with a relatively modest crew of cohorts. By early 2002, he had fled to Pakistan, leaving many of his companions dead and his organization, al-Qaeda, in a state of disarray. The Taliban, defeated, were pleading to be allowed to put down their arms and go back to their villages, an abortive process that Anand Gopal vividly described in his book, No Good Men Among the Living.

    It was, it seemed, all over but the cheering and, of course, the planning for yet greater exploits across the region. The top officials in the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were geopolitical dreamers of the first order who couldn’t have had more expansive ideas about how to extend such success to -- as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld indicated only days after the 9/11 attacks -- terror or insurgent groups in more than 60 countries...


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. {...}

      Seeing War

      ...And it's a tale that's not over yet. Not by a long shot. As a start, in the Trump era, the longest war in American history, the one in Afghanistan, is only getting longer. There are those U.S. troop levels on the rise; those air strikes ramping up; the Taliban in control of significant sections of the country; an Islamic State-branded terror group spreading ever more successfully in its eastern regions; and, according to the latest report from the Pentagon, “more than 20 terrorist or insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

      Think about that: 20 groups. In other words, so many years later, the war on terror should be seen as an endless exercise in the use of multiplication tables -- and not just in Afghanistan either. More than a decade and a half after an American president spoke of 60 or more countries as potential targets, thanks to the invaluable work of a single dedicated group, the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, we finally have a visual representation of the true extent of the war on terror. That we’ve had to wait so long should tell us something about the nature of this era of permanent war.

      America’s war on terror across the globe (from the Costs of War Project). Click on the map to see a larger version.

      - click link above to see map -

      The Costs of War Project has produced not just a map of the war on terror, 2015-2017 (released at TomDispatch with this article), but the first map of its kind ever. It offers an astounding vision of Washington’s counterterror wars across the globe: their spread, the deployment of U.S. forces, the expanding missions to train foreign counterterror forces, the American bases that make them possible, the drone and other air strikes that are essential to them, and the U.S. combat troops helping to fight them. (Terror groups have, of course, morphed and expanded riotously as part and parcel of the same process.)

      A glance at the map tells you that the war on terror, an increasingly complex set of intertwined conflicts, is now a remarkably global phenomenon. It stretches from the Philippines (with its own ISIS-branded group that just fought an almost five-month-long campaign that devastated Marawi, a city of 300,000) through South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and deep into West Africa where, only recently, four Green Berets died in an ambush in Niger...


      {...}

      Delete
    2. {...}

      ...No less stunning are the number of countries Washington’s war on terror has touched in some fashion. Once, of course, there was only one (or, if you want to include the United States, two). Now, the Costs of War Project identifies no less than 76 countries, 39% of those on the planet, as involved in that global conflict. That means places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya where U.S. drone or other air strikes are the norm and U.S. ground troops (often Special Operations forces) have been either directly or indirectly engaged in combat. It also means countries where U.S. advisers are training local militaries or even militias in counterterror tactics and those with bases crucial to this expanding set of conflicts. As the map makes clear, these categories often overlap.

      Who could be surprised that such a “war” has been eating American taxpayer dollars at a rate that should stagger the imagination in a country whose infrastructure is now visibly crumbling? In a separate study, released in November, the Costs of War Project estimated that the price tag on the war on terror (with some future expenses included) had already reached an astronomical $5.6 trillion. Only recently, however, President Trump, now escalating those conflicts, tweeted an even more staggering figure: “After having foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is time to start rebuilding our country!” (This figure, too, seems to have come in some fashion from the Costs of War estimate that "future interest payments on borrowing for the wars will likely add more than $7.9 trillion to the national debt" by mid-century.)

      It couldn’t have been a rarer comment from an American politician, as in these years assessments of both the monetary and human costs of war have largely been left to small groups of scholars and activists. The war on terror has, in fact, spread in the fashion today’s map lays out with almost no serious debate in this country about its costs or results. If the document produced by the Costs of War project is, in fact, a map from hell, it is also, I believe, the first full-scale map of this war ever produced.

      No less stunning are the number of countries Washington’s war on terror has touched in some fashion. Once, of course, there was only one (or, if you want to include the United States, two). Now, the Costs of War Project identifies no less than 76 countries, 39% of those on the planet, as involved in that global conflict. That means places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya where U.S. drone or other air strikes are the norm and U.S. ground troops (often Special Operations forces) have been either directly or indirectly engaged in combat. It also means countries where U.S. advisers are training local militaries or even militias in counterterror tactics and those with bases crucial to this expanding set of conflicts. As the map makes clear, these categories often overlap.

      Who could be surprised that such a “war” has been eating American taxpayer dollars at a rate that should stagger the imagination in a country whose infrastructure is now visibly crumbling? In a separate study, released in November, the Costs of War Project estimated that the price tag on the war on terror (with some future expenses included) had already reached an astronomical $5.6 trillion. Only recently, however, President Trump, now escalating those conflicts, tweeted an even more staggering figure: “After having foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is time to start rebuilding our country!” (This figure, too, seems to have come in some fashion from the Costs of War estimate that "future interest payments on borrowing for the wars will likely add more than $7.9 trillion to the national debt" by mid-century.)


      {...}

      Delete
    3. .

      {...}

      It couldn’t have been a rarer comment from an American politician, as in these years assessments of both the monetary and human costs of war have largely been left to small groups of scholars and activists. The war on terror has, in fact, spread in the fashion today’s map lays out with almost no serious debate in this country about its costs or results. If the document produced by the Costs of War project is, in fact, a map from hell, it is also, I believe, the first full-scale map of this war ever produced...

      No one in this country even thinks to question the $ trillions we spend on the military and our wars. Yet, Trump will play hell trying to get the modest $200 million he wants for infrastructure to keep the country from falling apart and we can be assured that half of whatever he does get will be wasted on bridges to nowhere and walls.

      .

      Delete
    4. It's the Ledeen Doctrine:

      ‘Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.’

      http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/ledeen_michael/

      Delete
    5. (I replied way up the line to Afghanistan, Blogger puts it here.)

      Delete
    6. Similarly, Ledeen abhors what he sees as weakness in foreign affairs policy-makingandmakes frequent use of Machiavellian ideas to promote his martial vision.In a March 2003 BBC interview, for example, Ledeen claimed: “As soon as we land in Iraq, we’re going to face the whole terrorist network. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are the big four, and then there’s Libya. …You can’t solve all problems, I grant that. I mean, I wrote a book about Machiavelli, and I know the struggle against evil is going to go on forever.”[32] Ledeen was referring to his 1999 book on “why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago,” in which he argued that war “provides a real test of character” and “creates a pool of leaders for the nation.”

      Delete
    7. Trump was forged via TV by Afghanistan et-al.

      Delete
    8. Quirk doesn't lock his doors and has no fences.

      Delete
    9. .

      Trump was forged via TV by Afghanistan et-al.

      Only if by et-al you mean his three wives, two divorces, 4 bankruptcies, 'bone spurs', beauty pageants, screwing over vendors, and making a shit load of money.

      .

      Delete
    10. Obozo said the Afghanistan War was the important one....the one we must win.

      Then left it to The Donald.

      In Iraq Obozo pulled the troops out too soon creating ISIS.

      Trumps Generals have done a number on ISIS.

      Give him time.

      He's only been in office a year

      Delete
    11. I don't know if Obozos intent was to leave a real mess but if it was....as I suspect it was....he was wildly successful.

      Hillary owns Libya.

      "We came we saw he died....Hehehahaha"

      HILLARY THE HAG on the death of Qducky.

      Delete
    12. Obozos policies...his wish list...are being put into practice in....VENEZUELA.

      I AM SOOOOOO GLAD HE IS GONE !

      Delete
    13. http://img.3lift.com/?width=500&height=250&url=%2F%2Fimages.3lift.com%2F3974498.png&logo_exclude=NW&logo=%2F%2Fimages.3lift.com%2F3888759.png&alt_logo=%2F%2Fimages.3lift.com%2F3888760.png&logo_x_pct=0&logo_y_pct=0&v=17&noCrop=1&color=%23FFFFFF

      Delete
    14. .

      Trumps Generals have done a number on ISIS.

      Dunning-Kruger effect ascendant in Idaho.

      #Sad#SoSad

      .

      Delete
  10. "The War Against the Terror Masters"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ("Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We'll Win.")

      Delete
    2. How we'll win ...

      The comedy continues ...
      The US refuses to acknowledge. Victory ... Or how it was obtained.

      The victory against the Islamic State ...
      Credit goes to the Russian intervention ... The Iraqi Government ... The Syrian Government ... The Kurds of Syria ... The Iranian Government ... Kurds of Iraq ... US Generals providing weapons from Benghazi to Islamic Radicals in Syria.

      To credit the US with the defeat of the Islamic State ... Pure Hubris


      Delete
    3. Oh, yeah

      Gotta credit Hezbollah, too.

      Delete
    4. It was "THE RAT DOCTRINE" that actually won the ISIS war !

      Just took a little longer than some expected

      Delete
    5. Yeppers, "Draft Dodger" Peterson, except it was the Russians who implemented it.

      WINNING when they did

      Delete
    6. Not in Iraq JACK "WAR CRIMINAL" HAWKINS.

      Looking over the entire play the Kurds earned the most applause

      Delete
    7. .

      Or, it could have simply been the Russians tactic of bombing the shit out of anything that moved, terrorist, allies, militants, civilians, dogs, cats...oh yea...and bombing the shit out of anything that didn't move, refineries, oil convoys, houses, fighting positions, front end loaders, etc.

      .

      Delete
    8. VERY EFFECTIVE TACTIC

      IF IT MOVES OR NOT IT DIES AND DOESN'T SHOOT BACK

      KEEPS THE CASUALTIES DOWN FOR THE RUSSKI.

      POOTY APPROVED STAMP ON ORDINANCE.

      Delete
    9. Iraq, Draft Dodger, the Iraqi mostly used their own artillery.

      Seems that the Iraqi would rather have Iranian advisors on the ground than US directed air support.

      We have to judge the Trump Administration on the 160,000 homeless Kurds.

      Kurds that were made homeless as the result of the abject failure of applying US political influence upon the clit clipping Sunni Kurds of Iraq.

      Delete
    10. The Russians air offensive in support of Syrian forces beat the Islamic State, glad both the Q and the Draft Dodger agree.

      It is so gratifying when we have consensus on a subject.

      Delete
    11. .

      Right, rat.

      What Russia did in Syria, Saudi Arabia is currently doing in Yemen.

      If you call that close air support, well...

      .

      Delete
  11. "Gorilla Channel" Hoax Snares Never Trumpets

    See: American Thinker

    It snared THE QUIRKSTER and he's usually not an easy snare.

    ReplyDelete
  12. TGE KURDS USED ARTILLERY GIVEN TO THEN BE US JACK "WAR CRIMINAL" HAWKINS...NOT REALLY SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THOUGH JACK "DEAD BEAT DAD" HAWKINS.

    I'M ANGRY AT THE DOBALD FOR NOT CONTINUING TO ARM THEM JACK "WIFE ABUSER" HAWKINS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Been drinking again, son?

      Anyway, I'd like to see a link on the US providing artillery to the Kurds. I know Obama wasn't willing to do it. I had heard rumors the US was sending US troops to Syria to provide artillery support there last year; but I hadn't heard about us giving artillery to the Kurds.

      .

      Delete