Born in Chicago on October 26, 1947, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, a solidly Republican suburb of Chicago. In 1964 she supported Republican conservative Barry Goldwater for U.S. President. The following year, she enrolled at Wellesley College in MCassachusetts, where her political views would undergo a radical transformation.
Rodham was deeply influenced by a 1966 article titled “Change or Containment,” which appeared in Motive, a magazine for college-age Methodists. Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence. Its thesis was that “certain cultural settings” (most notably American capitalism) were inherently inequitable and oppressive, and thus caused people to feel “pain and rage” that sometimes erupted into violence — like that of “the rioters in Watts or Harlem” — which was “reactive and provoked” rather than aggressive or malicious. Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweek reporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.
Following the June 1968 assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy, Hillary ended her affiliation with the Wellesley campus Young Republicans and volunteered in New Hampshire to work on the presidential campaign of antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy. When McCarthy later dropped out of the Democratic primary, Hillary threw her support behind the Party’s eventual nominee, Hubert Humphrey. From that point forward, wrote Barbara Olson in her 1999 book Hell to Pay, “Republicans were the enemy and the enemy was allied with evil — the evils of war, racism, sexism, and poverty.”
In late August 1968, when the so-called Chicago Seven incited massive countercultural protests and violent riots near the venue of that year’s Democratic National Convention (in Chicago), Hillary [was in Chicago] for three nights during the mayhem.
In 1969 Hillary wrote her 92-page Wellesley senior thesis on the theories of radical Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky. A great admirer of Alinsky’s activist tactics, Hillary met with the famed author several times in 1968 to interview him personally. She concluded her thesis by stating:
“Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs [the five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President] or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”
Her conclusion also included this sentence: “If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.”
Ultimately, Hillary’s investigation of Alinsky’s methods and ideals led her to believe that President Lyndon Johnson’s federal antipoverty programs did not go far enough in redistributing wealth among the American people and did not give sufficient power to the poor.
When Hillary graduated from Wellesley in 1969, she was offered a job with Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago. She opted instead to enroll at Yale Law School. Nevertheless, she would maintain her allegiance to Alinsky’s teachings throughout her adult life. She also continued to correspond with him, as the two maintained a very friendly relationship steeped in mutual admiration. In a letter dated July 8, 1971, Hillary penned a letter to Alnsky that began: “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people. You are being rediscovered again as the New Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing. I seem to have survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
According to a March 2007 Washington Post report: “As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the [IAF]…. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.”
At Yale, Hillary was strongly influenced by the radical theoretician Duncan Kennedy, founder of the academic movement known as critical legal studies, which, drawing on the works of the Frankfurt School, viewed law as a “social construct” that corrupt power structures routinely exploited as an instrument of oppression to protect and promote their own bourgeois values at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. Advocates of critical legal studies were interested in revolutionary change and the building of a new society founded on Marxist principles.
During her time at Yale, Hillary became a prominent figure in the campus protest movement. She wore a black armband in remembrance of the students killed at Kent State in May 1970; she led demonstrations against the Vietnam War; and she led rallies demanding that tampons be made available in the women’s restrooms on campus.
Hillary served as one of nine editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, where she worked collaboratively with Mickey Kantor (who, more than two decades later, would serve as U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Commerce Secretary under President Bill Clinton) and Robert Reich (who would serve as Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997). “For too long,” said the Yale Review, “legal issues have been defined and discussed in terms of academic doctrine rather than strategies for social change.” The publication was replete with articles by or about such radicals as William Kunstler, Charles Reich (author of The Greening of America); Jerry Rubin (who wrote a piece exhorting parents to “get high with our seven-year-olds,” and urging students to “kill our parents”); and Charles Garry (the civil rights attorney who defended Black Panther Party members accused of murder). The Fall and Winter 1970 editions of the Yale Review, on which Hillary worked as associate editor, focused heavily on the trials of Black Panthers who had been charged with murder. Numerous cartoons in those issues depicted police officers as hominid pigs.
One of Hillary’s Yale professors, Thomas Emerson (known as “Tommy the Commie”), introduced her to the aforementioned Charles Garry. Garry helped Hillary get personally involved in the defense of several Black Panthers (including the notorious Bobby Seale) who were then being tried in New Haven, Connecticut for the torture, murder, and mutilation of one of their own members. Though evidence of the defendants’ guilt was overwhelming, Hillary — as part of her coursework for Professor Emerson — attended the Panther trials and arranged for shifts of fellow students to likewise monitor court proceedings and report on any civil-rights abuses allegedly suffered by the defendants. (Those abuses could then be used, if the Panthers were to lose their case, as grounds for appeal.) Striving to neutralize what she considered the pervasive racism of the American legal system, “Hillary was,” as Barbara Olson observed in Hell to Pay, “a budding Leninist.”
In 1970, Hillary chaired a meeting where Yale Law School students voted in favor of joining a national strike against the Vietnam War.
In 1972 Hillary worked on George McGovern’s presidential campaign and led a voter registration drive in San Antonio, Texas.
Also in 1972, she went to Berkeley to work as an intern at her hand-picked law firm: Treuhaft, Walker, and Bernstein. Founded by current or former members of the Communist Party USA, this firm had long acted as a legal asset not only for the CPUSA but also for the Black Panthers and other Bay-area radicals. Founding partner Bob Treuhaft, head of the California Communist Party, had been labeled one of the nation’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. According to historian Stephen Schwartz, “Treuhaft is a man who dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.” Hillary did yeoman’s work while learning at the feet of Treuhaft and his fellow masters. Associates say that Hillary, during her tenure with the firm, helped draftees get themselves declared conscientious objectors so they could avoid serving in Vietnam; they also contend that Hillary served VA interns seeking to avoid taking a loyalty oath to the United States.
Also in the early 1970s, Hillary developed a close acquaintanceship with Robert Borosage, who would later become a major figure in such leftist organizations as the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the Campaign for America’s Future, and Institute for America’s Future. Hillary herself (along with Bill Clinton) would go on to develop close political ties with IPS; moreover, she would give that organization a great deal of money to further its cause.
In the early 1970s as well, Hillary began what would develop into a lifelong friendship with Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF). After graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, Hillary moved to Washington and took a full-time position as a staff lawyer with CDF.
Edelman went on to help Hillary secure a coveted research position with the Carnegie Council on Children, where the young attorney assisted Yale psychology professor Kenneth Keniston in the production of a report (titled All Our Children) advocating a dramatic expansion of social-welfare entitlements and a national guaranteed income — all in the name of children’s rights. Moreover, the report maintained that the traditional nuclear family was not inherently preferable to any other family structure, and that society had an obligation to honor, encourage, and support alternate arrangements such as single-parent households. What really mattered, said the Council, was the network of professionals — teachers, pediatricians, social workers, and day-care workers — who would collectively play the most vital role in raising children properly. In short, the Carnegie Council preached that childrearing was less a parental matter than a societal task to be overseen by “public advocates” — judges, bureaucrats, social workers and other “experts” in childrearing — who could intervene between parents and children on the latter’s behalf. According to the report, the role of parents should be subordinate to the role of these experts.
Viewing America as an authoritarian, patriarchal, male-dominated society that tended to oppress women, children, and minorities, Hillary wrote a November 1973 article for the Harvard Educational Review advocating the liberation of children from “the empire of the father.” She claimed that the traditional nuclear family structure often undermined the best interests of children, who “consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position.” “Along with the family,” she elaborated, “past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian Reservation system.” She added: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect a child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents.”
Decades later, Hillary would take up these themes again in her 1996 book It Takes a Village, which stressed the importance of the larger community of adults — many of whom are paid caretakers whose labors are funded by American taxpayers — in childrearing.
In the summer of 1973, Hillary took the bar exam in both Arkansas (where she passed the test) and Washington, DC (where she failed). A total of 817 people took the DC bar exam that summer; 551 of them passed, and 266 failed.
In 1973-74 Hillary became a key inside member (along with more than 40 other attorneys) of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry staff, which sought to advance the movement to impeach President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. With single-minded zealotry, Hillary worked on the investigation anywhere from twelve to twenty-four hours per day, seven days a week. While preparing the articles of impeachment, however, she was eventually fired from the Committee staff because of her unethical behavior. The Committee’s general counsel and chief of staff, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, supervised Hillary’s work on the Watergate investigation in 1974 and concluded that she was a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer.” Her brief, Zeifman elaborated, was so rife with fraud that she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. For extensive details pertaining to these charges, click here.
In 1975 Hillary defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping and beating a 12-year-old girl. (Taylor specifically requested that he be represented by a female attorney.) So brutal was the assault, the victim spent five days in a coma immediately afterward; then months recovering from the physical thrashing that accompanied the rape; and over 10 years in psychotherapy. At the time of the attack, doctors told her she would probably never be able to bear children.
Hillary knew for certain that Taylor was guilty of this crime, as she made clear years later when she discussed the case in a 1980s interview with Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. “He [Taylor] took a lie detector test!” Mrs. Clinton recalled. “I had him take a polygraph test, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
Notwithstanding her knowledge of the man’s guilt, Hillary obtained a plea bargain for Taylor by taking advantage of a prosecutorial error — the prosecutors had cut out and examined the blood-covered section of Taylor’s underwear that proved his guilt, but then discarded the fabric, making it impossible for the defense to examine it. Because of this misstep, Hillary sensed an opportunity to have the evidence dismissed and to press for a plea deal.
But before actually doing that, Hillary consulted with a New York-based forensic scientist with a reputation for helping defendants such as Taylor by providing testimony in court designed to cast doubt on the physical evidence. She commissioned the investigator to examine the remaining, undiscarded portion of Taylor’s underwear, and the investigator determined that the prosecution would be unable, based on that, to prove that Taylor was guilty. Armed with that opinion, Hillary returned to the Arkansas prosecutor and pushed for a plea bargain.
In the 1980s interview, a laughing Mrs. Clinton recounted to Reed that she had told the prosecutor: “Well, this guy’s ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” When Reed asked Clinton about the outcome of the case, she replied, nonchalantly, “Oh he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months.” (Those two months were subtracted from the perpetrator’s one-year prison sentence.)
Subsequent to the Taylor trial, a Newsday examination of court files, investigative files, and interviews with witnesses revealed that Hillary had also attacked the young victim’s character during the trial by calling into question her motives and her honesty.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Hillary wrote in an affidavit at the time of the trial. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.” In addition, Hillary wrote that a child psychologist had told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” particularly when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”
In June 2014, Daily Beast reporter Josh Rogin tracked down the victim (now 52 years old) from the 1975 rape case, interviewed her, and issued the following report:
… The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.
In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said…. The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.
“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.” …
The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations [about the girl having made previous false accusations and fantasizing about older men] and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.
“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
“She lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not. Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.” …
“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?” …
She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance….
The victim doesn’t remember ever meeting Clinton in 1975; she says her memories from that ordeal are spotty. But she does recall feeling exasperated by the law enforcement and legal proceedings to the point where she told her mother she just wanted it to be over so she could try to resume her childhood.
“I had been through so much stuff I finally told them to do whatever,” she remembered. “They had scared me so bad that I was tired of being put through it all. I finally said I was done… I thought they had both gotten long-term sentences, I didn’t realize they got off with hardly nothing.” …
(NOTE: In the 1980s interview with Roy Reed, Mrs. Clinton said that she had accepted Taylor’s case as a favor to the prosecutor. But years later, in July 2014 — after the Reed interview had been made public — Clinton issued a videotaped statement contradicting that assertion: She said: “I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant who had been accused of rape. I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not, and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did…. When you’re a lawyer, you often don’t have a choice as to who you will represent …”)
In October 1975 Hillary married Bill Clinton, whom she had met during her student days at Yale Law School.
In 1976 Mrs. Clinton worked for Jimmy Carter‘s successful presidential campaign. Soon thereafter, she found employment as an attorney with the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, where she would continue to work until 1992. According to political analyst and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, “She [Hillary] had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General, and made partner only after he was elected governor.”
In 1978 President Carter appointed Mrs. Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a federally funded nonprofit organization that functioned primarily as a vehicle for expanding the social welfare state and broadening the mandate for social welfare spending. According to Dick Morris: “The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became [board] chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.”
Under Mrs. Clinton’s leadership, LSC’s annual budget more than tripled, from $90 million to $321 million. LSC used these taxpayer funds in a variety of ways — most notably to print political training manuals showing “how community organizations and public interest groups can win political power and resources,” and to finance training programs that taught political activists how to harass their opposition.
During Mrs. Clinton’s years on the LSC board, the Corporation also worked to defeat a California referendum that would have cut state income taxes in half; it called for the U.S. government to give two-thirds of the state of Maine to American Indians; it paid Marxist orators and folk singers to wage a campaign against the Louisiana Wildlife Commission; it joined a Michigan initiative to recognize “Black English” as an official language; and it sought to force the New York City Transit Authority to hire former heroin addicts so as to avoid “discriminat[ing]” against “minorities” who were “handicapped.”
As the 1980 presidential election drew near, and it became clear that Ronald Reagan might defeat the incumbent Jimmy Carter, LSC redirected massive amounts of its public funding into an anti-Reagan letter-writing campaign by indigent clients. After Reagan was elected in November 1980, LSC immediately laundered its assets — some $260 million — into state-level agencies and private groups so as to keep the funds away from the board that Reagan would eventually appoint. Hillary Clinton left LSC in 1981. 
Bill Clinton served as Governor of Arkansas from 1978 to 1980, and again from 1982 to 1992. Thus Mrs. Clinton spent a total of twelve years as Arkansas’s First Lady. During that time, she continued her legal practice as a partner in the Rose Law Firm. In 1978 she became a board member of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), and from 1986 to 1992 she served as chair of the CDF Board.
From 1982 to 1988 Mrs. Clinton also chaired the New World Foundation (NWF), which had helped to launch CDF in 1973. During her years at NWF’s helm, the Foundation made grants to such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Christic Institute, Grassroots International, the Committees in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (which sought to foment a Communist revolution in Central America), and groups with ties to the most extreme elements of the African National Congress.
When Bill Clinton became U.S. President in 1993, the Clintons asked Wellesley College to shield Hillary Rodham’s aforementioned senior thesis (about Saul Alinsky) from public access. In compliance, Wellesley president Nannerl Overholser Keohane approved a policy that would make the senior thesis of every Wellesley alumna available in the college archives for anyone to read — except for those written by either a “president or first lady of the United States.”
In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband took his oath of office, Mrs. Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech, she stated: “We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.”
That same year, Mrs. Clinton latched onto the phrase “the politics of meaning,” an opaque concept coined by Michael Lerner that blended radical politics with New Ageish human potentialism. She invited Lerner to the White House, briefly making him her “guru” until the ridicule which this caused made her retreat from the connection. (In her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton strenuously avoids any mention of Lerner, or of Lerner’s Tikkun magazine.)
In May 1993, Mrs. Clinton became involved in a major controversy when she and President Clinton determined that seven employees of the White House Travel Office should be fired — an unusual occurrence in an office where employees typically remained in their posts for many years. In turn, the Clintons gave the Travel Office business — and the commissions that came with it — to a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who had a travel agency of her own.
Because simply handing over government business to a relative would have been politically untenable, so the Clintons concocted a story suggesting that the Travel Office had been rife with corruption, and that the workers there needed to be fired. While an audit of the Travel Office’s finances found the record-keeping to have been below par, there was no evidence of corruption or embezzlement. Nonetheless, the FBI was pressured to make arrests, and the local U.S. Attorney was charged with prosecuting the employees for corruption.
White House denials of any scheme, and leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism. Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired. A prosecution for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in an acquittal. Clinton’s cousin was removed as new head of the Travel Office. A later report written by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number of inaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.
Also during her early years as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton was put in charge of the 500-member Health Care Task Force which tried, in secret meetings and by stealth, to socialize medical care in the United States, a sector that represented approximately one-seventh of the U.S. economy. This modus operandi was in violation of so-called “sunshine laws,” which forbid such secret meetings from taking place when non-government employees are present. Mrs. Clinton was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for these violations. The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, ultimately ruled against her and the Clinton administration. In December 1997 Lamberth issued a 19-page report condemning as “reprehensible” the duplicity exhibited by Mrs. Clinton’s Task Force. “The Executive Branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of its misconduct,” said Lamberth. “It is clear,” he added, “that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of government. There were no rogue lawyers here misleading the court.”
The linchpin of Mrs. Clinton’s healthcare plan was a mandate forcing all Americans to purchase insurance, and imposing a penalty on those who failed to comply. In November 2013, MIT professor John Gruber, who was a chief architect of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), said that Hillary Clinton’s 1990s-era plan was “much more interventionist” than Obamacare, “much to the left of Obamacare,” and “would have more radically changed our healthcare system.”
During the 1990s, Mrs. Clinton spent eight years faithfully attending Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C., which was then pastored by the Rev. Dr. J. Philip Wogaman. Wogaman had made his political worldview clear in his many writings and sermons over the years. For instance, in 1990, a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, he wrote that “Christian socialism’s critique of the excesses and brutalities and idolatries of the free market still need to be heard.” On an earlier occasion, he had lauded the “modest but real economic success” of Communist Cuba and China. As long ago as 1967, Wogaman had written: “The USSR is characteristic of the more tolerant Communist arrangements for religion. In Russia there are specific constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, and some provision has even been made for the upkeep of churches and theological seminaries.”
By no means was Wogaman the only radical cleric to be admired by Mrs. Clinton. In her 2004 memoir, Living History, Mrs. Clinton praised Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr., who had served as Yale’s chaplain during Hillary’s years at the law school, for his “articulate moral critique of American involvement” in Vietnam. That critique involved his traveling to Hanoi in 1972. Seven years later, he would make a friendly trip to Tehran, capital of the first modern Islamic theocratic state which had just stormed a U.S. embassy and kidnapped dozens of his fellow countrymen.
In his 2014 book The First Family Detail, bestselling author Ronald Kessler writes that during Mrs. Clinton’s years as First Lady, she was known and despised by Secret Service agents and military personnel for the nasty treatment, explosive temper, and imperious attitude she conveyed toward them. “Agents say being on Hillary Clinton’s detail is the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service,” writes Kessler. “Being assigned to her detail is a form of punishment.” In August 2014, the Daily Mail provided the following details from Kessler’s book:
A few days after rumors of Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky first made headlines in January 1998, Mrs. Clinton made a January 27 appearance on NBC’s Today Show, where she told interviewer Matt Lauer that the allegations had been fabricated by “this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced [that he would run] for President.” Mrs. Clinton would echo this theme many times thereafter. In a June 8, 2003 interview with Barbara Walters, for instance, she characterized the Republicans who had led the 1998 impeachment of her husband as “a right-wing network” that “was after his presidency” and had resorted to “perverting the Constitution.”
In the final month of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary Clinton held an open auction, which evolved into what the New York Times described as a “frantic weeklong bidding war” on the proposal for her forthcoming memoir, Living History. The winner of the bidding was Simon & Schuster, which paid Mrs. Clinton an $8 million advance for the book. At the time, this represented the second-largest advance ever given to an author, exceeded only by the $8.5 million advance that was paid for Pope John Paul II’s book in 1994.
When New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1998 announcement that he planned to retire from public life in 2000, Mrs. Clinton resolved to run for the seat Moynihan would be vacating. In October 1999 Hillary and Bill Clinton bought a house in Chappaqua, New York; their $1.35 million mortgage was secured by Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign was managed by Bill de Blasio.
In the 2000 U.S. Senate race in New York, Mrs. Clinton defeated Republican Rick Lazio by a 55-to-43 percent margin. Clinton carried the heavily Democratic New York City by 74 percent to 25 percent, which was more than enough to compensate for her losses in the suburbs (by 53-to-45 percent) and upstate (50-to-47 percent).
Notably, Clinton ran on the tickets of both the Democratic Party and the far-left Working Families Party (WFP), which was closely allied with ACORN. After receiving WFP’s endorsement, Clinton, vowing to wage a “people’s grassroots campaign,” told a cheering crowd of WFP-affiliated supporters: “I consider this the beginning of a partnership.”
During her campaign, Clinton spoke at numerous WFP events, most memorably at the Party’s debut convention, held March 26-27, 2000 in Albany—an event which the Communist Party USA newspaper People’s Weekly World approvingly called “a turning point in New York politics.” Also in attendance at the convention was a delegation of the Democratic Socialists of America, many of whose members belong to WFP.
“Candidates know that when they’re on our [WFP] line, they’re committed to certain things,” said Bertha Lewis, who, at that time, served as WFP’s co-chair and ACORN-New York’s executive director. Just days before Mrs. Clinton won her Senate seat in November 2000, Lewis noted: “Hillary knows that if she wins, we’re going to be knockin’ on her door. She won’t be able to hide.” Of the 3.4 million popular votes Mrs. Clinton received from New Yorkers in that Senate election, WFP delivered 103,000.
That same year, WFP also endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, winning 80,000 votes for him. “[T]here have been few candidates in history more supportive of our issues than Al Gore and Hillary Clinton,” proclaimed WFP campaign literature.
On September 12, 2001, Senator Clinton joined President Bush in condemning the previous day’s terrorist attacks. On May 16, 2002, however, she went to the Senate floor to charge that Bush had known in advance about a possible 9/11-type plot but had done nothing to prevent it. “We have learned that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible plot by those associated with Osama bin Laden to hijack a U.S. airliner,” said Mrs. Clinton.
In October 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution which authorized President Bush to use military measures, if necessary, to force Saddam Hussein to comply with a United Nations Security Council Resolution to disarm. She was firm in her belief that Saddam posed a clear and serious threat to American national security, both in terms of his weapons programs and his affiliations with terrorists. On October 10, 2002, she said from the Senate floor:
“In the four years since the [weapons] inspectors left [Iraq], intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed…. Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret.”
In September 2003, six months after the U.S. had routed Saddam’s forces on the battlefield, Mrs. Clinton proudly defended her vote for the Iraq Resolution. According to a Washington Times report: “she said the intelligence she saw leading up to the war was consistent with intelligence from previous administrations and she checked out information with trusted Clinton administration officials.” Moreover, Senator Clinton credited her husband for having bequeathed to President Bush the military that had so swiftly deposed Saddam.
But a month later, as the U.S. struggled to suppress a ferocious insurgency in Iraq, Senator Clinton condemned President Bush’s foreign policy as “aggressive unilateralism” that had been implemented “as a first resort against perceived threats and not as a necessary final resort.” With ever-increasing stridency, she began to charge that Bush had misled her, the Congress, and the American people about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam. In November 2005 she wrote an open letter to her constituents, which stated, in part:
“In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations-sponsored inspections …
“Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the ‘evidence’ of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false.
“Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.”
But Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she had been deceived into supporting the war, and that she had turned against it only upon subsequently becoming aware of that deception, was untrue. As David Horowitz explains:
“Starting in July 2003 … the Democratic National Committee ran a national TV ad whose message was: ‘Read his lips: President Bush Deceives the American People.’ This was the beginning of a five-year, unrelenting campaign to persuade Americans and their allies that ‘Bush lied, people died,’ that the war was ‘unnecessary’ and ‘Iraq was no threat.’ …
“In fact, the claim that Bush lied in order to dupe Democrats into supporting the war is itself the biggest lie of the war. Every Democratic Senator who voted for the war had on his or her desk before the vote a 100-page report, called ‘The National Intelligence Estimate,’ [NIE], which summarized all America’s intelligence on Iraq that was used to justify the war. We live in a democracy; consequently, the opposition party has access to all our secrets. Democrats sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which oversees all of America’s intelligence agencies. If any Democrat on that committee … had requested any intelligence information Iraq, he or she would have had that information on his or [her] desk within 24 hours. The self-justifying claim that Bush lied to hoodwink the Democrats is a fraudulent charge with no basis in reality.”
In June 2007, New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr., authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, wrote that Mrs. Clinton refused to say whether she had ever read the complete NIE report, which … included caveats about Saddam’s weaponry and doubts about any alliance he may have had with terror groups like al Qaeda.
Senator Clinton also took a highly noteworthy position against President Bush’s January 2007 decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in a military “surge” designed to turn the tide of the Iraq War — which had devolved into a bloody, deadly quagmire — back in America’s favor:
In fact, the surge proved to be a monumentally important strategy that finally enabled the U.S. to emerge victorious in the war. Prior to the surge, it had not been uncommon for 3,000 or more Iraqi civilians and security-force members to die at the hands of terrorist violence during any given month. By May 2008, the monthly mortality figure stood at 19, and it fluctuated between 7 and 25 deaths per month over the ensuing 14 months.
On January 7, 2014, The Daily Mail reported that in his soon-to-be-released memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, Robert Gates — who had served as Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama — wrote that Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the troop surge had been based on how she thought that position would affect her own political fortunes. For example, Gates described a “remarkable” exchange that he had witnessed, where “Hillary [speaking retrospectively] told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary” and could not afford to be perceived as pro-war. Gates added that Obama had likewise “conceded vaguely that [his] opposition to the Iraq surge had been political.” “To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me,” wrote Gates, “was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
During her years in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton consistently voted against proposed income-tax cuts — most notably the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 — depicting them as fiscally irresponsible measures that were designed to help only the wealthy. At a fundraiser in 2004, she told a crowd of financial donors: “Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you … We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
After the passage of the aforementioned tax cut in 2001, Senator Clinton often stated that it had harmed the U.S. economy. In April 2003, for example, she claimed, “there is no escaping the wrongheaded, very destructive economic policies that this [Bush] administration has chosen to inflict on our country.” The following month, she told the U.S. Senate: “We are in danger of being the first generation of Americans to leave our children worse off than we were.”
Contrary to her claims, however, the post-tax cut U.S. economy immediately produced federal tax revenues of unprecedented heights. As Steve Forbes said on March 20, 2006: “In 2003 … those tax cuts … set off the boom that we are having today, strong economy. We’re the largest growing economy among large economies in the world. We’ve created … nearly five million jobs and we’ve had a 4 percent-plus growth rate. That would not have happened without the tax cuts.” Similarly, CNBC’s Larry Kudlow said in February 2006: “[T]he reality is that the Bush tax-cut incentives continue to propel economic growth.”
During her years in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton cast numerous important votes on the issue of immigration:
In 2005 Senator Clinton gave a speech to members of the National Council of La Raza, an organization that supports open borders as well as expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens. She told them: “You are doing your part to make sure that every child in every American family has access to the tools necessary to live out their dreams, to a have piece of the American dream, but I don’t know that your government is doing its part, right now — I’m not sure we are doing everything to make your job easier, to make sure the opportunities and society are alive and well for everyone.” Mrs. Clinton further expressed her support for the Dream Act, legislation that would allow illegal aliens to attend college at in-state tuition rates — which are much lower than those paid by out-of-state U.S. citizens. “We need to open the doors of college to immigrant children who came here did well and deserved to go on with their education,” she said.
In 2006 Senator Clinton appeared with Senators Kennedy, McCain, and Schumer before a group of illegal Irish immigrants who had come to Capitol Hill to lobby the U.S. government for amnesty. “It is so heartening to see you here,” she told them. “You are really here on behalf of what America means, America’s values, Americans’ hopes.”
When Mrs. Clinton entered the Democratic presidential primary in 2007, she spoke out in favor of sanctuary policies whereby city governments refused to enforce federal immigration laws and apprehend illegal aliens. “You will have people hiding from the police” if such policies were not in force, she said during an MSNBC debate. “And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens.” Asked if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law, Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you’re a local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement.”
For an overview of Mrs. Clinton’s voting record on issues of particular import during her years in the Senate, click here.
Depicting herself and fellow leftists as the champions of the downtrodden, Mrs. Clinton has often characterized Republicans and conservatives as being inclined toward racism and discrimination. At a Martin Luther King Day celebration in January 2006, for example, she told a black audience at Harlem’s Canaan Baptist Church: “When you look at the way the [Republican-controlled] House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.” She went on to condemn Republicans’ “constant exploitation of race.” Al Sharpton later praised her comments.
Throughout her adult life, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the worldviews and ideals of radical feminism. Following the February 2006 death of Betty Friedan, the longtime communist who co-founded the National Organization for Women, Mrs. Clinton said that Friedan’s activism and writing had “opened doors and minds, breaking down barriers for women and enlarging opportunities for women and men for generations to come. We are all the beneficiaries of her vision.”
Also in February 2006, Senator Clinton spoke at the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation, where she criticized the concept of school vouchers:
“First family that comes and says ‘I want to send my daughter to St. Peter’s Roman Catholic School’ and you say ‘Great, wonderful school, here’s your voucher.’ Next parent that comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist …’ The parent says, ‘The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy…You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can’t discriminate against me…’ So what if the next parent comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad?…’ I won’t stand for it.”
A longtime supporter of the pro-socialist, notoriously corrupt community organization ACORN, Mrs. Clinton has spoken at numerous ACORN conferences and boasted about her ties to the group. Speaking at ACORN’s 2006 national convention, for instance, Clinton looked back fondly on her memories of the group’s early days in Arkansas. After noting that she herself had founded a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, which dealt with many of the same issues as ACORN, she hailed ACORN for its outstanding work. “I thank you for being part of that great movement,” she said, “that progressive tradition that has rolled across our country.”
As November 2006 approached, Mrs. Clinton campaigned for re-election to the U.S. Senate. During her 2000 campaign, she had pledged to bring 200,000 new jobs to New York State. By late 2006, however, New York had lost 112,000 jobs and its jobless rate had risen by 0.7 percent. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton won the 2006 election by a wide margin over a weak Republican opponent, John Spencer.
In 2001 Bill Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation — now called the the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation — “to alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect the environment.” Hillary Clinton served as one of the Foundation’s board members during the time period following her 2013 resignation as secretary of State and preceding her 2015 announcement that she was running for president. For an in-depth look at the Foundation’s numerous, serious scandals, click here.
In January 2007, two months after her re-election to a six-year term in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton announced that she planned to run for U.S. President in 2008.
On the campaign trail, candidate Clinton said that to restore “fiscal responsibility to government,” she would like to return “high-income tax rates to the 1990s levels.”
In April 2007 Mrs. Clinton spoke at an event held by Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network, where she stated that her own presidential bid was possible only because of the dedicated work of longtime civil-rights leaders who had fought on behalf of those traditionally excluded from power positions in American life. She specifically cited Jesse Jackson and Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman (both of whom were on the dais that day). “I have enjoyed a long and positive relationship with Reverend Al Sharpton and National Action Network,” said Mrs. Clinton, “and I don’t ever remember saying ‘no’ to them and I intend to remain their partner in civil rights as I clean the dirt from under the carpet in the Oval Office when I am elected President.”
That same month, Senator Clinton appointed Raul Yzaguirre, who served as President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza from 1974 to 2004, to co-chair her 2008 presidential campaign and to direct her outreach efforts to Hispanic voters.
In May 2007, Mrs. Clinton outlined an economic vision of “shared prosperity” that would focus on the redistribution of wealth by raising the incomes of, and benefits for, lower earners. She lamented the “economic policy dynamics [that] are generating rising income inequality,” and expressed her desire to make “corporations pay their fair share of taxes.” She did not note that corporate taxes in the U.S. were already among the highest for OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. Moreover, her claim that “the percentage of taxes paid by corporations have fallen” was incorrect. In fact, the percentage of taxes paid by corporations was 11.5 percent in 2006, considerably higher than the 8.2 percent figure for 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Also in May 2007, Senator Clinton emphasized the importance of replacing the conservative notion of an “ownership society” with one based on communal responsibility and prosperity. She lamented that the contemporary American economy left “it all up to the individual” in “the ‘on your own’ society” which tended to increase the income gap between the “rich” and the “poor.” Though Mrs. Clinton depicted the American middle class as a shrinking entity, Democratic economist Stephen Rose notes (in his 2007 book, Social Stratification in the United States) that once people outside their prime working years – i.e., the elderly and the young — are excluded from the equation, the median income of American families is approximately $63,000.
At a June 4, 2007 event hosted by Sojourners, the Jim Wallis-founded evangelical Christian ministry that preaches radical leftwing politics and has long championed communist causes, Mrs. Clinton said, “…I certainly think the free market has failed. We’ve all failed.” She further said she would repeal the Bush tax cuts to help finance universal, government-funded health care.
In July 2007, Senator Clinton voiced her opposition to a new Supreme Court ruling that public school systems may not achieve or preserve racial integration through measures — such as busing or quotas — that take explicit account of students’ racial backgrounds. According to Clinton, this decision “turned the clock back” on the history of hard-won gains in the realm of civil rights; it represented “a setback for all of us who are on the long march toward racial equality and the building of a stronger, more unified America”; and it demonstrated the John Roberts-led Supreme Court’s “willingness to erode core constitutional guarantees.”
Mrs. Clinton added that “all students benefit from racially diverse classrooms,” and that “[r]ecent evidence shows that integrated schools promote minority academic achievement and can help close the achievement gap.” Her claims are contradicted, however, by the scholarship of Thomas Sowell, who has found that “[n]ot only is there no hard evidence that mixing and matching black and white kids in school produces either educational or social benefits, there have been a number of studies of all-black schools whose educational performances equal or exceed the national average”; that black students who have been bussed into white schools have seen no discernible rise in their standardized test scores — “not even after decades of busing”; and that “[n]ot only is there no hard evidence” for the dogma “that there needs to be a ‘critical mass’ of black students in a given school or college in order for them to perform up to standard,” but “such hard evidence as there is points in the opposite direction.”
Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign was endorsed by the Working Families Party (WFP), a front group for ACORN. WFP had also endorsed Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, during which she spoke at numerous WFP events — most memorably at the party’s debut convention in March 2000, an event which the Communist newspaper People‘s Weekly World approvingly called “a turning point in New York politics.” “[T]here have been few candidates in history more supportive of our issues than Al Gore and Hillary Clinton,” said WFP campaign literature.
The Clinton campaign suffered a significant embarrassment in September 2007 when it was revealed that one of its major donors, Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, had stolen more than $50 million from hundreds of investors in a 10-year Ponzi scheme. By that point, Hsu had earned the title of “HillRaiser” along with numerous other leading financial backers of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential run. Indeed, earlier that year Hsu had co-hosted a Beverly Hills fundraiser that took in $1 million for Mrs. Clinton, and he was scheduled to co-host yet another Clinton fundraiser later in September. Hsu’s arrest, howeverm forced Mrs. Clinton to return more than $800,000 she had received from donors linked with Hsu. (In 2009, Hsu was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison for what the judge called his “conniving use of the political process.”)
At a “Take Back America” conference in June 2007, Mrs. Clinton said: “Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart.” “The top 1 percent of our households,” she added, “held 22 percent of our nation’s wealth.”
During her 2008 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton cited a 1996 trip she that had made (as First Lady) to Tuzla, Bosnia, as an example of an instance where she had gained the type of valuable foreign-policy experience that would make her “ready on day one” to serve as America’s commander-in-chief. But in recounting that trip, she falsely stated that she and her daughter, Chelsea, had come under hostile fire shortly after landing at the airport and thus were forced to run for cover. “I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton said in a March 24th campaign speech in Washington. “There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” She also told this tale in several interviews during the campaign.
News footage of the 1996 event, however, showed that there was no sniper fire whatsoever. Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who was present on the trip, aired a video which showed Clinton deboarding the plane in Tuzla, waving to onlookers, and shaking hands with a young schoolgirl. When initially confronted with these facts, Clinton dismissed her misrepresentation as a “minor blip” and said that she simply had a “different memory” of the event. But as controversy over the story grew, she decided to address the matter more directly and told a Pittsburgh radio station: “You know I have written about this and described it in many different settings and I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else.”
Clinton also told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that she had misspoken because she had been “sleep-deprived” by her rigorous campaign schedule. But in fact, as the London Telegraph reported: “ Her schedule showed she had no public engagements the day before her Washington speech and she spent the night in her Embassy Row home.” Added the Telegraph on March 25, 2008: “She insisted it was the ‘first time in 12 years’ she had spoken inaccurately about the trip. But her Bosnia anecdote has been a regular feature of her stump speeches.”
On June 5, 2008, after a hotly contested primary with Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, as it had become apparent that Obama’s lead was insurmountable.
From 2004-08, Mrs. Clinton spent $300,000 on taxpayer-funded chartered flights, including $150,000 in 2006, her U.S. Senate re-election year, by which time she was widely viewed as a likely presidential contender for 2008. According to The Hill, “Senators are allowed to use taxpayer dollars for charter flights to and from official events, but her spending is in stark contrast to what other 2008 presidential contenders from the Senate spent over that time…. By comparison, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and then-Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) didn’t fly any charter planes with taxpayer money from 2005 to 2008…. Then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) flew two charter flights totaling $8,400 during those four years.” Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merrill, told USA Today that the chartered flights were consistent with Clinton’s “tireless work on behalf of New York.”
In May 2007, Dick Morris summarized Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as a U.S. Senator as follows:
“Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.”
Hillary Clinton’s alliances with organizations like CAP, MMFA, and ACS serve as indicators of her most deeply held political beliefs and objectives. David Horowitz has provided the following incisive analysis of Mrs. Clinton’s broad agendas and the tactics she employs in pursuit of them:
“It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one’s agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. … New Left progressives [such as] Hillary Clinton … [share the] intoxicating vision of a social redemption achieved by Them … For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal — ‘social justice’ — is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. ‘Social Justice’ for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself. … In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which ‘social justice’ prevails. … In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them. … The focus of Hillary Clinton’s ambition … is the vision of a world that can only be achieved when the Chosen accumulate enough power to change this one.”
Mrs. Clinton has close ties to the billionaire financier George Soros and his so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or Shadow Party. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks that actively campaign for the Democrats and leftist causes. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold McEwan Ickes — all identified with the Democratic Party left.
A New York hedge fund manager with a personal fortune totaling many billions of dollars, Soros is one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful individuals. Since 1979, his foundation network — whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) — has given billions of dollars in grants to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. The major agendas of those organizations can be summarized as follows:
Hillary Clinton shares each of the foregoing Soros agendas.
At a 2004 “Take Back America” conference in Washington, DC, Mrs. Clinton introduced Soros with these words:
“Now, among the many people who have stood up and said, ‘I cannot sit by and let this happen to the country I love,’ is George Soros, and I have known George Soros for a long time now, and I first came across his work in the former Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, when I was privileged to travel there, both on my own and with my husband on behalf of our country. … [W]e need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.”
Mrs. Clinton also has particularly close ties to a vital think tank called the Center for American Progress (CAP), which was founded jointly by George Soros, Morton Halperin, and John Podesta. Soros and Halperin first proposed CAP’s creation in 2002 to promote generally the cause of the Left and the Democratic Party. But CAP’s overarching objective is considerably more specific than that: As an inside source told reporter Christian Bourge of United Press International, CAP is in fact “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.”
Another key organizational ally of Mrs. Clinton is Media Matters For America (MMFA), headed by David Brock. Media Matters is financed, in part, by the Open Society Institute as well as the Soros-funded Democracy Alliance.
Like Media Matters, Hillary Clinton supports the re-establishment of the so-called Fairness Doctrine (or a law whose ultimate effect would be the same), just as she did during her years as First Lady. This Doctrine would dilute, restrict, or limit the message of influential conservative broadcasters and, consequently, influence the thinking and the voting decisions of the American people.
Mrs. Clinton is a former Board of Advisors member of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS).
On December 1, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama named Hillary Clinton to be the Secretary of State in his forthcoming administration. According to the public-interest organization Judicial Watch, however, Mrs. Clinton was technically ineligible for this post because of a stipulation in the Ineligibility Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause prohibits any active member of Congress from being appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during that legislator’s current term in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. An Executive Order increasing the salary for Secretary of State had been indeed signed by President Bush in January 2008, when Mrs. Clinton was in the early stages of her second Senate term.
In March 2009, Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mexico’s drug war was, in large measure, the fault of the United States. “Our [America’s] inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians,” said Clinton. She contended further that illegal drugs had been coming from Mexico into the U.S. to feed “our insatiable demand” for such substances, and in exchange American weapons had been flowing south.
In reality, however, the Mexican drug cartels acquire their weaponry not from the U.S. but rather from the black market, from such nations as Venezuela and Iran, and from Hezbollah-type terror groups wishing to destabilize North America. Moreover, in many cases they simply “procure” their weapons from less-than-savory elements within the Mexican military—weapons which in all likelihood did come from the U.S. through legal channels.
In March 2009, Secretary Clinton articulated the Obama administration’s wish to reach out, in peace negotiations, to supposedly moderate members of the Taliban. Said Mrs. Clinton: “We must support efforts by the government of Afghanistan to separate the extremists of al Qaeda and the Taliban from those who joined their ranks, not out of conviction but out of desperation. They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al Qaeda and support the constitution.”
In a March 26, 2009 television interview, Fox News reporter Greta Van Susteren questioned Mrs. Clinton about North Korea’s recent announcement that it would soon be test-launching a communications satellite, a launch that regional powers believed was actually intended to test a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. “What are we going to do about North Korea?” Susteren asked. Clinton responded:
“… I have been very clear, President Obama has been very clear, we would like to get back to the kind of talks that led to the initial steps in their de-nuclearization. The six-party framework that involves all of the neighbors, each of whom have a stake in what happens in North Korea — we have offered that. I sent word that we would like to have our special envoy for North Korean policy go to Pyongyang. They didn’t want him to come.
“So we’re working hard. And if they’re watching you [on TV], I’m sure that since you were there [Susteren had visited North Korea], you made a big impression, went to a karaoke bar in Pyongyang. (laughter) They probably still remember you. If they’re watching — if anybody from North Korea is watching this program with you, Greta … You know, we’d love for them to begin to talk about what we can do together to fulfill the framework of the six-party talks.”
In March 2009, Mrs. Clinton was the recipient of Planned Parenthood‘s Margaret Sanger Award. When accepting the honor, Clinton said: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.” She added: “The 20th-century reproductive-rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.”
During a July 2009 visit to Mumbai, India, Mrs. Clinton said the following about America’s culpability for creating the air pollution allegedly responsible for global warming: “We acknowledge – now with President Obama – that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change. We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”
While visiting Nigeria in August 2009, Mrs. Clinton was asked to comment about that country’s latest presidential election, which was marred by violence, ballot stuffing and other irregularities. She replied: “In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man [George W. Bush] running for President was the governor of the state [of Florida]. So we have our problems too. Our democracy is still evolving.”
In a May 2010 speech to the Brookings Institution, Mrs. Clinton spoke about the virtues of high taxation rates: “The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms.” She went on to cite Brazil as a model: “Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they’re growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty.”
In 2007-08, a Canadian named Ian Telfer, chairman of Uranium One — a South African uranium-mining company with assets on several continents — funneled millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Moreover, a number of additional people with ties to Uranium One gave the Foundation between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions.
Over time, Uranium One gained control of approximately 20% of all U.S. uranium reserves. Then, in June 2010, the Russian government made an extremely generous offer to Uranium One’s shareholders. If the offer were to be accepted, Russia would gain a 51% controlling stake in the company. But because Uranium One now controlled one-fifth of all U.S. uranium reserves — and uranium is considered a strategic asset with implications for American national security — the deal with Russia could not be permitted without the approval of the American government. Specifically, that approval could be granted only by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is composed of several of the most powerful members of the cabinet — the Attorney General as well as the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Treasury, Homeland Security, Energy, and State. (The latter, of course, was Hillary Clinton.)
Without the approval of these seven Obama administration officials, Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One could not have taken place. All seven approved the deal. As a result, the Russian government now controlled fully 20% of all uranium production capacity in the United States. The seriousness of this matter was heightened even further by the fact that the U.S. produces only about one-fifth of all the uranium it needs to run its nuclear energy plants.
In June 2010 — the very month in which the Russian acquisition of Uranium One was approved by the CFIUS — Bill Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow for the astronomical sum of $500,000. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking. And Mr. Clinton’s speaking fee was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.
Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing deep concern about the sale of Uranium One to Russia. Two additional House members pushed legislation designed to invalidate the deal.
In October 2017, an explosive article in The Hill reported:
“Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews…. [FBI officials had] also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow.”
On February 8, 2018, Fox News reported:
“An FBI informant involved in the controversial Uranium One deal has told congressional committees that Moscow paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in a bid to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by helping former President Bill Clinton’s charities during the Obama administration. The Hill first reported late Wednesday that informant Douglas Campbell gave a 10-page statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and was interviewed for several hours behind closed doors by committee staff. In the statement,… Campbell said Russian executives told him that Moscow was hiring APCO Worldwide in an effort to influence the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.
“Campbell said Russian nuclear officials ‘told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.’ ‘The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,’ Campbell said in the statement. ‘APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.’”
On January 10, 2011, Mrs. Clinton, who was traveling through the Middle East in an effort to build diplomatic relationships with leaders in the region, taped a town hall segment for a talk show in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. She made reference to Jared Loughner, a deranged young man from Arizona, who, earlier that day, had attempted to assassinate Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a shooting spree that left 6 dead and 14 wounded. Asserting that exremism was a problem in the U.S. as well as in the Middle East, she said:
“Look, we have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Giffords was just shot in our country. We have the same kinds of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence.”
In a subsequent interview with CNN, Clinton said:
“Based on what I know, this is a criminal defendant who was in some ways motivated by his own political views, who had a particular animus toward the congresswoman. And I think when you cross the line from expressing opinions that are of conflicting differences in our political environment into taking action that’s violent action, that’s a hallmark of extremism, whether it comes from the right, the left, from Al Qaeda, from anarchists, whoever it is. That is a form of extremism.”
But Loughner’s crime was rooted not in any coherent political worldview, but rather in his profound mental illness. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton’s narrative concerning Loughner’s politics did not comport with the facts. A young woman named Caitie Parker, who had attended high school and college with the gunman, said of Loughner: “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.” Among Loughner’s favorite books were Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; he was an ardent atheist who strove to create chaos; and he believed that the U.S. government (under President Bush) was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a May 2011 interview, Mrs. Clinton said “there’s a small space for doubt” about Iran’s intention to build a nuclear bomb “because there are some contrary indicators.” “There is no doubt in my mind that they want nuclear energy and nuclear power,” she added, “which they are entitled to, to be able to use it for peaceful purposes. The real problem is once you do that and you get what’s called a breakout capacity, it’s not long before you could do the other [build a bomb]. So that’s why this is so important to address now.”
Pressed to comment on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran was clearly headed toward building a bomb, Mrs. Clinton expressed uncertainty:
“Well, they … we … we are doing this (pushing for sanctions) because we think they’re heading there. But whether they want to get what’s called the breakout capacity and stop, knowing that they could then move forward, that’s where the question comes.”
Addressing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
In July 2011, Mrs. Clinton addressed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the bloc of 57 Muslim countries and territories that seek to outlaw, everywhere in the world, any and all criticism of Islamic people, practices, legal codes, and governments. In her speech, Clinton vowed that the Obama administration, in its effort to help the OIC “protec[t] the rights of all people to worship the way they choose,” would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” On behalf of the Obama State Department, she negotiated with the OIC a resolution that would make it unlawful to engage in speech that incites “discrimination” and “hostility” toward “religion.”
But as former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy points out: “Religion here does not mean religion; it means Islam.” “At that very moment in July 2011,” McCarthy expands, “Christians were under siege in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran—being gradually purged from those Islamic countries just as they’d been purged from Turkey, which hosted Mrs. Clinton’s speech.” Adds McCarthy, “the resolution negotiated by the Obama State Department and the OIC violates the First Amendment.”
In a February 2012 interview with CBS, Mrs. Clinton argued passionately against the viability of arming opposition forces who were fighting against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. When pressed to explain why the Obama administration was not arming the Syrian rebels, Clinton said: “What are we going to arm them with, and against what? You are not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanaon and Jordan — that’s not going to happen. So maybe at the best you can smuggle in, you know, automatic weapons.” “And to whom are you delivering them?” she continued. “We know that al-Qaeda [leader Ayman al] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?” “Despite the great pleas that we hear from those people who are being ruthlessly assaulted by Assad,” Clinton concluded, “if you are a military planner or if you are a secretary of state and you are trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, we don’t see that.”
Two years later, in her memoir (Hard Choices) about her years as secretary of state, Clinton contradicted the foregoing remarks and claimed that she had been a strong advocate for arming the Syrian opposition in 2012, but that President Obama ultimately opposed the policy. Then, in an August 2014 interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton stated that the Obama administration’s failure to aid the Syrian opposition had subsequently led to profoundly negative consequences — most notably the recent takeover of much of Iraq by the barbaric, genocidal terror group ISIS, which had originally coalesced in Syria. Said Clinton: “The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”
On March 23, 2012, Mrs. Clinton personally signed off on documents that changed Huma Abedin’s title from “deputy chief off staff” to “special government employee,” in order to allow Abedin to earn outside income as a private consultant for the Clinton Foundation and Teneo (a New York-based global advisory firm with ties to the Clintons) beginning in June of that year. This title change did not become public knowledge until May 2013. Good-government groups warned of the potential conflict-of-interest inherent in an arangement where a government employee maintains private clients.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit showed that both before and after Mrs. Clinton signed off on the special employment deal for Abedin in March 2012, Abedin repetedly—for months on end—dodged State Department requests that she disclose financial and employment information about her husband, Anthony Weiner, who had left Congress amid personal scandal in June 2011. For details about Abedin’s repeated failures to comply with those requests, click here.
In July 2012, author and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy noted the following items about the relationship between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the ideological wellspring of Hamas and al Qaeda:
In the summer of 2012,controversy arose over the fact that Secretary Clinton’s closest aide and advisor, Huma Abedin, has longstanding intimate ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Throughout her time as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly refused to designate Boko Haram — an Islamic group seeking to overthrow the Nigerian government and create an Islamic state — as a “foreign terrorist organization.” Her refusal came despite the fact that Boko Haram had already: (a) bombed or burned hundreds of Christian churches over the years, most when they were packed for service; (b) stated its intent to cleanse northern Nigeria of all Christian presence; (c) openly threatened to poison the food eaten by Christians; and (d) stormed areas where Christians and Muslims were intermingled, singling the Christians out before slitting their throats.
Mrs. Clinton’s logic was voiced by her husband, former U.S. president Bill Clinton, who said, in a February 2012 speech in Nigeria, that “inequality” and “poverty” were “what’s fueling all this stuff”—a reference to Boko Haram’s terror—and warned the government that “It is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence.”
On the day of September 11, 2012, Islamist protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, where they destroyed the American flag and replaced it with a black Islamist flag that read, “There is one God, Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet.” The protesters said they were angry over an obscure YouTube film — known alternately as Innocence of Muslims or Muhammad, Prophet of the Muslims — that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad and had been produced recently in the U.S.
Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity had become increasingly commonplace in Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. At or near the U.S. mission in Benghazi, for instance, there were many acts of terrorism featuring the use of guns, improvised explosive devices, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, and car-bombs, along with explicit threats against Americans issued by known terrorists like al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of such developments, U.S. personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi had repeatedly asked the Obama administration — i.e., the State Department — for increased security provisions during 2012, but all of these these requests were either denied or ignored.
It should be noted, however, that when Hillary Clinton herself had visited Benghazi on October 18, 2011, she clearly was well aware of the many dangers that already existed in the city. Her cognizance of those threats was evidenced by the fact that in advance of her visit, she had the Defense Department pre-position military assets off the coast of Libya, in case she was to encounter danger and need rescue.
On the night of September 11, 2012 — at approximately 9:42 p.m. Benghazi time — a large group of heavily armed Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya with much greater violence. In the process, they killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, 52-year-old Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. Two days later, Mrs. Clinton spoke out against the killings but prefaced her remarks by condemning the aforementioned YouTube video, which she said had been used as a pretext for the violence. In short, she advanced the notion that the attack was an unplanned, unforseeable escalation of an impromptu protest over an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video, rather than a pre-planned, carefully orchestrated act of terrorism led by an al Qaeda-affiliated group. Said Clinton:
“Let me state very clearly — and I hope it is obvious — that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith. To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage….”
On September 13, 2012, Mrs. Clinton delivered a televised statement denouncing not only the violence in Benghazi but also the “disgusting and reprehensible” video allegedly responsible for it, and stating “very clearly” that “the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.” “We absolutely reject its content and message,” said Clinton, emphasizing America’s great “respect for people of faith.”
At a September 14 receiving ceremony where the bodies of the four dead Americans were returned to the United States, Clinton spoke to the grieving families of the deceased. In the course of her remarks, she referenced an “awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Afterward, she told the father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL who had been killed in the attack, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
For nearly two weeks, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration continued to characterize what occurred on September 11 in Benghazi not as an act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous, unplanned uprising that evolved unexpectedly from what had begun as a low-level protest against a YouTube video. In reality, however, within mere hours after the September 11 attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that it was a planned terrorist incident, and that the video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
On January 23, 2013 — Fully 134 days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi — Mrs. Clinton went before Congress to testify as to what she knew about the incident. During the course of her testimony, she stated that she had been unaware of Ambassador Stephens’ August 15, 2012 cable stating that there was a clear and growing danger of terrorism against Americans in Benghazi.
In the course of her testimony, Mrs. Clinton said: “I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi.” (This testimony was later contradicted, however, by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed the U.S. military’s efforts to improve diplomatic security in Libya. Wood testified that he personally had recommended that the Benghazi mission be closed, in light of the fact that more than 200 attacks — including approximately 50 in Benghazi — had been carried out against American interests in Libya.)
The most dramatic moment in the congressional hearing occured when Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson asked Mrs. Clinton to explain why the State Department had spent so long characterizing the attack as an unplanned, unforseeable escalation of an impromptu protest over an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video, rather than a pre-planned, carefully orchestrated act of terrorism led by an al Qaeda-affiliated group. Clinton yelled back: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”
At another point in the hearing, Senator Rand Paul asked Mrs. Clinton whether the United States had ever been involved in procuring weapons in Libya and transferring them to other countries including Syria. Clinton replied, “I do not know. I have no information on that.”
A March 25, 2013 New York Times story subsequently indicated that the Obama administration had in fact been sending arms from Libya, through intermediary nations and ultimately to Syria, since early 2012. Yet another Times article, in fact, described Mrs. Clinton as one of the driving forces who had called for arming the Syrian rebels in precisely that manner.
In September 2014, former Deputy Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell reported that in late 2012 he had witnessed — in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters — a Sunday meeting in which Cheryl Mills (Secretary of State Clinton’s chief of staff) and Jake Sullivan (Clinton’s deputy chief of staff) were overseeing and directing staffers who were busy culling through boxes and purging documents that might implicate Clinton or her top people in the Benghazi attacks. “When he arrived,” reported Fox News, “Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. His [Maxwell’s] aide was also there, and though she worked for him, he [Maxwell] was not told of her Sunday file purging duties.”
According to Maxwell: “She [the aide] told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light.’” (“Seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers.) Added Maxwell: “I asked her [the aide], ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”
Following Maxwell’s revelations, Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz said that Clinton’s team had clearly scrubbed documents before investigators could examine them. He told Fox News: “They were essentially creating two piles: The things the Accountability Review Board and that Congress would see and anything else that would shed quote ‘bad light’ on Hillary Clinton and her senior management that they were put in a different pile and they were never to be seen.” Chaffetz also said that Maxwell had come to him and Congressman Trey Gowdy more than a year earlier to tell them the same story.
Speaking at a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington, DC on December 7, 2012, Mrs. Clinton praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for having worked with her in 2009 toward a moratorium on building new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. She then said the following:
“I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion. So, yes, there is more that the Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out, within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can be accomplished.
“And I think that, unfortunately, there are more and more Israelis and Palestinians who just reject that idea out of hand: Why bother? Why try? We’ll never be able to reach an agreement with the other. But in the last 20 years, I’ve seen Israeli leaders make an honest, good-faith effort and not be reciprocated in the way that was needed.”
Clinton also criticized Israel’s newly announced plan to build 3,000 new housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank: “In light of today’s announcement, let me reiterate that this administration — like previous administrations — has been very clear with Israel that these activities set back the cause of a negotiated peace.”
On April 20, 2014, The Washington Times reported that according to internal government documents, “top officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development repeatedly cited former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for setting into motion a policy to waive restrictions on who could receive U.S. aid in Afghanistan, resulting in millions of dollars in U.S. funds going directly into the coffers of Afghan ministries known to be rife with corruption.” Added the Times:
References to Mrs. Clinton’s role in the policy first appeared in a November 2012 USAID action memo, which outlined how U.S. officials made a “strategic foreign-assistance decision” two years earlier to provide “at least 50 percent of U.S. Government assistance directly to the” Afghan government.
The decision was “reaffirmed by Secretary of State Clinton” in July 2010, according to the memo, which highlighted her actions as justification for why USAID should waive an internal policy that otherwise would have required the agency to first assess the risk that such “direct assistance” might be lost to fraud, waste or outright theft.
USAID conducted such assessments anyway in recent years and reached sobering conclusions about the overall effects of billions of dollars that the U.S. has spent on nation building in Afghanistan….
A report by the Government Accountability Office [GAO] in July 2011 asserted that Washington “more than tripled its awards of direct assistance to Afghanistan” about the time the USAID memo says Mrs. Clinton was pushing the policy.
The GAO report claimed that, despite concerns over whether the funds would be used “as intended,” total direct assistance from the Defense Department to the Afghan Defense and Interior ministries “grew from about $195 million in fiscal year 2009 to about $576 million in fiscal year 2010.” With regard to USAID, the GAO report said the agency’s “direct assistance” grew from roughly $470 million in 2009 to more than $1.4 billion in 2010….
Potentially more striking, however, is the manner in which USAID’s scathing ministry assessments point to the actions of Mrs. Clinton as a main justification for why the agency channels money directly to ministries known to have management and accountability problems.
A “Background” section at the opening of each assessment includes similar language to that used in USAID’s November 2012 action memo, asserting that the Obama administration made a “public strategic foreign-assistance decision” in 2010 that was later “reaffirmed” by Mrs. Clinton.
Under normal circumstances, USAID officials wrote in documents, the flow of American funds directly into a foreign government’s coffers “must not be authorized” if there is “clear evidence of vulnerabilities to corruption and the partner country government fails to respond or agree to appropriate risk mitigation remedy measures.”
But, the officials wrote, the Obama administration’s policy and Mrs. Clinton’s reaffirmation of it at a July 2010 conference in Kabul replaced the requirement that USAID adhere to an internal guideline known as ADS 220, which would have demanded that the agency assess risks associated with giving money directly to the Afghans.
On February 1, 2013, Mrs. Clinton stepped down from her post as Secretary of State, saying that she looked forward to getting away from the pressures of government life. She was replaced by U.S. Senator John Kerry.
By the end of Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, America’s relations with Russia, Israel, most of Europe, and virtually every Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East had deteriorated significantly.
Indeed, a March 2013 Gallup poll (measuring attitudes across 130 countries) indicated that the international perception of American leadership had fallen to its lowest point since the start of the Obama administration. The median worldwide approval rate for U.S. leadership was just 41%, down from 49% in 2009. According to The Hill: “The declines were driven primarily by souring opinions of the United States in Europe and Africa.” Among the more noteworthy reults: approval rates were just 13% in Russia, 17% in Egypt, 34% in Spain, 36% in Poland, 37% in France, and 38% in Taiwan.
On April 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at the Women of the World Summit in New York City and was asked, by the moderator of the event, the following: “When you look at your time as Secretary of State, what are you most proud of? And what do you feel was unfinished, and maybe have another crack at one day?” In her reply, Clinton was unable to provide any specifics regarding what she had achieved:
“Look, I really see my role as Secretary, in fact leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race. When you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished, so when President Obama asked me to be Secretary of State, I agreed.
“We had the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we had two wars. We had continuing threats from all kinds of corners around the world that we had to deal with. So it was a perilous time frankly. What he [Obama] said to me was, ‘Look, I have to be dealing with the economic crisis, I want you to go out and represent us around the world.’ And it was a good division of labor because we needed to make it clear to the rest of the world, that we were going to get our house in order. We were going to stimulate, and grow, and get back to positive growth and work with our friends and partners.
“So I think we did that. I’m very proud of the stabilization and the really solid leadership that the administration provided that I think now, leads us to be able to deal with problems like Ukraine because we’re not so worried about a massive collapse in Europe and China — trying to figure out [what] to do with all their bond holdings and all the problems we were obsessed with. I think we really restored American leadership in the best sense. That, once again — people began to rely on us as setting the values, setting the standards. I just don’t want to lose that because we have a dysfunctional political situation in Washington. Then of course, a lot of particulars, but I am finishing my book so you’ll be able to read all about it.”
In 2013, Mrs. Clinton endorsed the New York City mayoral candidacy of far-left Democrat Bill de Blasio. Hillary and Bill Clinton both attended de Blasio’s swearing-in ceremony as New York City mayor on January 1, 2014.
In July 2013, Mrs. Clinton reacted passionately when George Zimmerman, a “white Hispanic” neighborhood-watch captain in Sanford, Florida was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges connected to a February 26, 2012 incident in which he had shot and killed a 17-year-old African American named Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Speaking at the 51st annual convention of the black sorority group Delta Sigma Theta, Clinton said: “My prayers are with the Martin family and with every family who loves someone who is lost to violence. No mother, no father, should ever have to fear for their child walking down a street in the United States of America.” Adding that the jury verdict had “brought heartache, deep painful heartache” to many people, she stated: “As we move forward as we must, I hope this sisterhood will continue to be a force for justice and understanding.”
During the same Delta Sigma Theta speech (in July 2013), Mrs. Clinton denounced the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Lamenting that the Voting Rights Act was now in “real jeopardy,” Mrs. Clinton said: “The Supreme Court struck at the heart of the Voting Rights Act. For more than four decades this law has helped overcome constitutional barriers to voting. Again and again it has demonstrated its essential role in protecting our freedoms…. [The Supreme Court decision is] going to make it difficult for poor people, elderly people, minority people and working people to do what we should be able to take for granted.”
Striking a similar theme the following month, Clinton told a meeting of the American Bar Association: “In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states.” These were generally bills calling for Voter ID requirements at polling places, shortening early-voting periods, eliminating same-day voter registration, and preventing the arbitrary extension of voting hours. Clinton charged that North Carolina’s new electoral integrity law — which instituted precisely those four provisions — “reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression.” Such measures, she lamented, were part of a Jim Crow-like effort to “disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters” — i.e., to disenfranchise those groups. Added Clinton: “[A]nyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention.” Moreover, she described threat of voter fraud (in the absence of Voter ID requirements) as a “phantom epidemic.”
In a June 2014 interview, Mrs. Clinton was asked to comment on the potential consequences of a deal in which the Obama administration had recently freed five senior Taliban commanders and high-value terrorists who had been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, in exchange for the release of Bowe Bergdahl, an American Army soldier who had deserted the military in 2009 and spent the next five years with the Taliban. Said Clinton:
“These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.”
On June 17, 2014, Mrs. Clinton held a staged townhall meeting on CNN television. At one point in the proceedings, the subject turned to the Second Amendment, gun rights, and the National Rifle Association. Said Clinton: “We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” Bryan Preston of PJ Media noted that in that statement, Clinton had “directly assaulted the First and Second Amendments simultaneously.”
One of the more lucrative activities Mrs. Clinton pursued after leaving the State Department was public speaking, for which she earned approximately $200,000 per speech. In many cases, the contracts Clinton signed prior to making these speeches gave her the authority to approve or reject virtually every element of the proceedings. For example, her contract for a 2014 speech at SUNY-Buffalo stipulated that Mrs. Clinton had to be “the only person on stage during her remarks”; specifically demanded the provision of a “presidential glass panel teleprompter”; gave Clinton the exclusive right to approve “sets, backdrops, banners, scenery, logos, [and] settings”; gave her “sole discretion” over the content of her talk; stated that she “may elect to reschedule or cancel her appearance … for any reason whatsoever and at any time prior to the engagement”; awarded her 20 complimentary VIP tickets and a university-paid stenographer — at a price of $1,000 — solely for her personal records; authorized her speaking agency to veto any potential question-and-answer moderators; and allowed only those moderators — never members of the audience — to address Mrs. Clinton directly.
As of mid-2014, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s combined net worth was estimated at somewhere between $100 million and $200 million. Among other things, they had earned anywhere from $31 million to $37 million in advance payments for books they had authored since 2003. And, as noted above, Mrs. Clinton routinely earned $200,000 per speech after resigning as Secretary of State. Mr. Clinton, for his part, had earned $106 million in speaker’s fees between 2001 and 2013, including $17 million for 72 speeches he gave in 2012 alone; he once charged $750,000 for a single speech.
The Clintons spent this money lavishly. During the summers of 2011 through 2013, for instance, they rented out extremely expensive homes in the Hamptons for their family vacations. One example: The Clintons paid $200,000 per day to rent out a six-bedroom, $11 million mansion in the summer of 2013.
In a June 2014 interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Mrs. Clinton was asked whether her condemnation of income inequality in the United States was credible, given her immense wealth. According to the Guardian, Mrs. Clinton emitted a “burst of laughter” and said she found the question “painful.” She then answered the question as follows: “But they [Americans] don’t see me as part of the problem, because we [the Clintons] pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”
In June 2014, Bloomberg News revealed that Hillary and Bill Clinton’s rhetoric in favor of high estate tax rates for the wealthy was entirely inconsistent with their own personal money-management activities. First, some background:
In her failed 2008 presidential run, Mrs. Clinton spoke out in favor of requiring wealthier people pay a higher estate tax by capping the per-person exemption at $3.5 million and setting the top rate at 45 percent. During one campaign stop, she fielded a question from a woman who opposed Clinton’s plan to pay for universal retirement accounts by freezing the estate tax at a high level. The woman explained that inherited money had already been taxed when it was earned, and that it should not be taxed again simply to fund Mrs. Clinton’s program. In response, Clinton said that high estate taxes were actually consistent with traditional American values:
“People disagree about this, but the estate tax, which came into being by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and others, and has been part of our tax system for a very long time is there for a real simple reason: In America, we’ve never liked the idea of massive inherited wealth. Part of the reason why America has always remained a meritocracy where you have to work for what you get, where you have to get out there, make your case to people, come up with a good idea, is that we never had a class of people sitting on generation after generation after generation of huge inherited wealth.”
During a presidential debate in 2007, Mrs. Clinton expanded upon the theme that “tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans” were unjust. She explained, for example, that tax revenues from the wealthy were vital to the government, which “should be investing [those revenues] in new energy” and “should be investing in college affordability, universal pre-K …”
Against this backdrop came Bloomberg News’ report on June 17, 2014:
“Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it. To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death. The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.
“Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston. ‘The goal is [to] really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that’s really what this is,’ Sloan said. ‘You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.'”
In a late July 2014 interview, Fusion TV news anchor Jorge Ramos asked Hillary Clinton about the then-raging conflict in Gaza, where Israel was conducting a military operation designed to degrade Hamas‘s capacity to launch deadly missiles into Israel. When Ramos asked Clinton if she thought that Israel had responded “disproportionately” or “appropriate[ly],” Clinton did not answer directly. She said that “Hamas, which has its back against the wall, decided to once again fire rockets into Israel”; that “Israel has a right to self-defense, but I and everybody who is seeing these terrible pictures on our TV hope there can be a ceasefire”; and that Hamas was hiding rockets in civilian facilities — at least in part — because there were few other options, due to Gaza’s limited geographic size. Said Mrs. Clinton:
“I’m not a military planner but Hamas puts its missiles, its rockets in civilian areas, part of it is that Gaza is pretty small and it’s very densely populated, they put their command and control of Hamas military leaders in those civilian areas.”
In the summer of 2014, Israel engaged in a massive military operation designed to weaken the destructive capacity of Hamas terrorists who were launching more than 100 potentially deadly missiles per day from Gaza, deep into Israel. In the course of that military incursion, Israel discovered that Hamas, in recent years, had constructed a massive network of at least 60 underground missile storage-and-transport tunnels throughout Gaza. A number of those tunnels extended, underground, into Israeli territory — for the purpose of launching terror attacks, murders, and kidnappings aginst unsuspecting Israeli citizens. According to a Wall Street Journal report quoting Israeli military officials, Hamas had spent between $1 million and $10 million to build each of those tunnels, using as many as 350 truckloads of cement and other supplies per tunnel. To frame it another way, the materials used for each tunnel could have built 86 homes, or 19 medical clinics, or seven mosques, or six schools. But Hamas had other priorities.
Then, in a bombshell revelation in August 2014, Dennis Ross, the senior Mideast policy adviser to Secretary of State Clinton from 2009-2011, admitted that it was he who had been assigned the task of pressuring Israel to ease up on its military blockade of Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal from that region in 2005. “I argued with Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built,” Ross revealed in the Washington Post. “They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.” Ross’s admission showed that it was Clinton who had sent her personal envoy to push for a policy that ultimately enabled Hamas to build the terror tunnels.
Not that Mrs. Clinton’s State Department had been acting independently of the White House on the issue of cement. For example, Vice President Joe Biden had told interviewer Charlie Rose, on Bloomberg TV in 2010: “We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them to get building materials” and other forbidden items into Gaza.
In August 2014 The Daily Mail reported that during the previous month, the U.S. federal government had spent more than $55,000 on travel expenses related to Mrs. Clinton’s book tour (for her newly published Hard Choices). Among these expenses were a $3,668 charge for a single night’s lodging in a luxurious suite at the Four Seasons George V Hotel in Paris; another $35,183 for lodging in Paris; $11,291 for Secret Service protection in Paris; and a $5,100 rental fee for three Mercedes-Benz executive limousine vans during one day in Berlin. Hotel costs for Clinton’s stay in the German capital were not known to The Daily Mail. Tim Miller, executive director of the America Rising PAC, said: “Hillary’s book tour through Europe was a fiscal double whammy — lining her pockets with outrageous speaking fees [typically over $200,000 per appearance] and billing the taxpayers for thousands in travel.”
Appearing at an October 2014 Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, Mrs. Clinton told listeners not to give credence to the notion that “businesses create jobs.” “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” she said, adding: “You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
In a November 2014 interview with Katie Couric, Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea indicated not only that her parents had little interest in money, but also that they understood little about the private sector. Moreover, she gave voice to her parents’ belief that the public sector is much better-equipped than the private sector to help needy people. Said Chelsea: “I certainly spent my twenties rebelling, for me, by working in the private sector and trying really hard to care about things that my parents didn’t care about. And I’m grateful for those years that I spent, because I learned things I hadn’t learned around my dinner table. But ultimately I am my parents’ daughter, and I ultimately cared most about what they cared most about — enabling people to have better lives through our energies and our efforts than thay otherwise would have.
In December 2014, Mrs. Clinton spoke out about two recent, high-profile cases where white police officers had been involved in altercations with black suspects who died as a result:
Both of these incidents gained national publicity and sparked massive anti-police protests in cities across the United States, where demonstrators chanted such slogans as “Black Lives Matter,” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”
While receiving an award from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights at a December 16th gala in New York City, Hillary said: “Yes, black lives matter.” Wondering aloud what Kennedy would say about “the thousands of Americans marching in our streets demanding justice for all” and “the mothers who’ve lost their sons,” she added: “What would he say to all those who have lost trust in our government and our other institutions, who shudder at images of excessive force, who read reports about torture done in the name of our country, who see too many representatives in Washington quick to protect a big bank from regulation but slow to take action to help working families facing ever greater pressure?”
In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political candidates from accepting money from such sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way [i.e., an avenue by which] to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.” Most notably, as of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million to the Foundation.
While all donations from foreign sources raised ethical red flags, contributions that were made during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure (2009-13) as Secretary of State may have been even more significant, given the possibility that such funds could have been used to buy immediate political influence.
For details about these foreign donors and the implications of their contributions to the Foundation, click here.
In March 2015, it was reported that throughout her entire four-year tenure as Secretary of State (SOS), Mrs. Clinton had never acquired or used a government email account, and instead had transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her official government correspondences via a personal email address that she registered on the very same day as her confirmation hearings for SOS began. The personal email address — firstname.lastname@example.org — traced back to a private email server which was housed inside Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, New York. That server was registered under the names of: (a) “Eric Hothem,” the same aide who, at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency, had wrongfully carted off furniture from the White House, claiming that it was “Clinton’s personal property”; and (b) Justin Cooper, another former Clinton staffer.
On March 4, 2015, the Daily Mail reported: “Jonathan Mayer, a PhD candidate in computer science & law lecturer at Stanford University, said that Mrs. Clinton may have told her Internet service provider that she was starting a small business to allow her to set up the server. He said that Internet companies like Time Warner are wary about allowing individuals to do so as they might be hackers looking to send spam.”
(NOTE: In February 2015, Mrs. Clinton and her political team had instructed Platte River Networks, the New Jersey-based company that had been responsible for the care of Clinton’s server since May 31, 2013, to stop saving copies of sent emails after 30 days.)
Following the revelations regarding Mrs. Clinton’s emails, author and columnist Ben Shapiro observed: “In other words, Hillary knew she would be secretary of state conducting official business, and coincidentally opened a private email account at the same time to guard her from Freedom of Information Act requests.” Matt Devost, the president & CEO of the global cybersecurity firm FusionX, told Bloomberg News that by maintaining her own server, Clinton had the ability to wipe all of her data without a trace. “You erase it and everything’s gone,” said Devost.
The circumstances under which Mrs. Clinton’s wrongful use of the personal email account first came to light, were not entirely clear. Some news reports indicated that Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett had leaked the story to the press, in retribution for what she viewed as Mrs. Clinton’s political disloyalty to president.
Other reports said that the revelations grew out of a House Committee probe into the Benghazi terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012. The New York Times explained in March 2015: “As State Department lawyers sifted last summer through a new batch of documents related to the Benghazi attacks, they repeatedly saw something that caught their attention: emails sent to and from a personal account for Hillary Rodham Clinton. The lawyers, according to current and former State Department officials, were working to respond to a request from a specially appointed House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Libya. But they noticed that among the 15,000 documents they examined, there were no emails to or from an official departmental account for Mrs. Clinton. ‘This all raised the question to us: What else are we missing, and what do we need to comply’ with the request, said one official briefed on the matter.”
But Clinton and her advisors deceptively stated that the revelation about the former SOS’s emails had arisen in response to a mundane State Department request (in October 2014)—as part of a Department initiative to find ways to improve its own record keeping. Clinton claimed that all former secretaries dating back to the late 1990s had been asked to turn over records of all their correspondences — not under a cloud of suspicion or scandal, but merely as part of an effort to improve transparency.
Rather than comply with the demand that all of Clinton’s emails be turned over to the state Department and, in turn, the House Committee investigating Benghazi, Clinton’s advisers reviewed her emails and decided which ones to make available and which ones to delete. According to Clinton, she and her staff deleted more than 30,000 of the emails in question, calling them “personal” and not “work-related.”
In response to the disclosures regarding Mrs. Clinton’s four-year breach of protocol and regulations, National Security Archive director Thomas Blanton said, “Personal emails are not secure. Senior officials should not be using them.” Jason Baron, ex-director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said that Clinton’s transgression was “inconceivable,” adding: “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario—short of nuclear winter—where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level-head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business. I can recall no instance … when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business.” The use of such an email address would effectively shield her from subsequent Freedom of Information Act requests.Ari Fleischer, who served as White House spokesman under George W. Bush, told Newsmax TV he was certain that foreign agents had routinely read Mrs. Clinton’s emails dealing with sensitive government business. “If it’s done from a personal account, I guarantee you China, Russia and Iran have them.” Asked if Mrs. Clinton had violated federal law, Fleischer replied: “If you or I get subpoenaed, we have no choice, we turn everything over. You’re not supposed to have a team around you who decides what you turn over, what you don’t and what people are told exist and what doesn’t exist. The sleaziness of this aside and the fact that you have a government official who is doing business in the way that was designed to hide their business, there’s another issue here that is terribly serious…. If it’s a personal email, it’s simple for it to get hacked by a foreign adversary. Think of a Secretary of State for every day that she’s in office, is cc’ing Iran, Russia, China and other adversaries on every single email that she sends and every one that she receives.”Clinton’s use of a personal email account for her State Department business was in direct contradiction to: (a) a 2011 State Department cable in which, citing security concerns, she had instructed Department employees to “avoid conducting official Department [business] from your personal e-mail accounts”; and (b) a 2007 presidential campaign speech in which Mrs. Clinton had denounced “the secret White House email accounts” in the Bush administration as “part of a stunning record of secrecy and corruption” whereby “the Constitution is being shredded.”Clinton’s effort to keep all of her emails private was particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that she had previously — during her days as First Lady — gone on record saying that she tried not to leave any sort of paper trail, given the possibility that anything she wrote might one day be subpoenaed. Indeed, in a 1996 interview with Jim Lehrer of PBS, Clinton made it explicitly and emphatically clear that she avoided documenting official White House business in writing, for that very reason:
LEHRER: “Are you keeping a diary, [are] you keeping good notes of what’s happening?”
CLINTON (laughing): “Heavens no! It would get subpoenaed! I can’t write anything down.”
After remaining silent on the email issue for several days, Mrs. Clinton addressed it for the first time on March 10, 2015, in a hastily arranged press conference at the United Nations. There, she claimed that her reason for having used a personal email account was that she found it “easier,” “better,” “simpler” and more convenient to “carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.” “Looking back, “ she added, “it would’ve been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler and, obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.”
But in an interview at the Silicon Valley Conference for Women just two weeks earlier, Mrs. Clinton had told Re/code’s Kara Swisher that she carried more than one device with her:
SWISHER: “I want to ask the big question: iPhone or Android?”
CLINTON: “iPhone. OK, in full disclosure –”
CLINTON: “And a BlackBerry.” (Later in the conversation, Clinton said, “I don’t throw anything away, I’m like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have, you know, an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and blackberry.”)
Also at the March 10 press conference, Mrs. Clinton explained that she had decided which emails were of a “personal” nature and discarded them, before sending the rest to the State Department: “[A]fter I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.”
Below are the transcripts of a few exchanges Clinton had with reporters at the press conference:
QUESTION: Can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when?…
CLINTON: … In going through the e-mails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half [i.e., approximately 30,000 emails] were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear. For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced.
QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? And what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn’t? Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance.
CLINTON: We did not. In fact, my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work related…. The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided. (NOTE: In other words, she refused to turn over the server to authorities. Moreover, her reference to “personal communications from my husband and me” contadict’s Mr. Clinton’s earlier claim that he had sent a grand total of only two emails in his entire life, both during his days as president.)
QUESTION: Madam Secretary…. This wasn’t Gmail or Yahoo or something. This was a server that you owned. Is that appropriate? Is it — was there any precedent for it? Did you clear it with any State Department security officials? And do they have — did they have full access to it when you were secretary?…
CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches. (NOTE: The Secret Service has nothing to do with protecting email accounts from hackers.)
QUESTION: Were you ever — were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using — using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?
CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. (NOTE: In response to this claim by Clinton, a former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said: “I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified. Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.”)
Another major question related to Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal was whether or not she had signed an exit statement (Form OF-109) from the State Department affirming that she had turned over all public information to the government. (All high-ranking government officials are required — when they come into office — to sign a statement ensuring that 100% of their government-related records will remain with the government, and when the officials leave office, they sign an exit statement (OF-109) affirming that they have complied with this requirement.) When Fox News reporter Ed Henry asked Clinton (on March 16, 2015) if she had signed the exit statement, the former SOS merely waved while walking quickly past Henry and said, “Hi everybody, nice to see you.” At a press briefing that same day, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked the same question and replied: “I don’t have an update on this … We’re still working on it.” This was at least the third time in a week that Psaki had been asked whether Clinton had signed the exit statement. Finally, on March 17, Psaki said, “[W]e have reviewed Secretary Clinton’s official personal file and administrative files and do not have any record of her signing any of the 0F-109.”
On March 23, 2015, Mrs. Clinton unveiled a new strategy for dealing with the email scandal: she publicly joked about it. Speaking at a political journalism awards ceremony at Syracuse University, she said: “I am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight. You know my relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated…. But I am all about new beginnings. A new grandchild, another new hairstyle, a new email account — why not a new relationship with the press? So here goes. No more secrecy. No more zone of privacy — after all, what good does that do me? But first of all, before I go any further, if you look under your chairs, you’ll find a simple non-disclosure agreement. My attorneys drew it up. Old habits … last.”
Also in March 2015, the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, subpoenaed Mrs. Clinton’s server, asking her to hand it over to a third party that could determine which emails were personal and which were government records. But on March 27, Clinton lawyer David Kendall told the committee that the server no longer contained copies of any emails Clinton had sent during her time in office. According to the New York Times: “After her representatives determined which emails were government-related and which were private, a setting on the account was changed to retain only emails sent in the previous 60 days, her lawyer … said. He said the setting was altered after she gave the records to the government.”
The House committee’s chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, complained: “Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest.” Added Gowdy:
“After seeking and receiving a two-week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis. We learned today, from her attorney, [that] Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.”
On March 30, 2015, it was learned that in fact Mrs. Clinton — contrary to her claim that she preferred to conduct all her email correspondences via a single device — had actually emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry during her time as secretary of state.
Just a few weeks later, Mrs. Clinton was caught in yet another lie concerning her ongoing email scandal. In a series of emails (from 2011-12) that The New York Times published on May 18, 2015, she clearly had used a second private email address — email@example.com — contrary to her (and her representatives’) repeated claims that she had used only “one email account” during her years in the State Department. Clinton’s attorney David Kendall, for one, had assured Rep. Gowdy that the “hrod17” address had not “existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”
Of particular interest to Gowdy was a series of memos that Sidney Blumenthal — a longtime Clinton advisor and confidante who had served as a speechwriter in the Bill Clinton White House but was not an employee of the Obama State Department. As The New York Times reported: “[Blumenthal] wrote to Mrs. Clinton [in 2011-12] about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.”
On May 22, 2015, it was reported that then-Secretary of State Clinton had received at least one highly sensitive email on her private server about the deadly 9/11/12 terrorist attack against U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi. The information was not classified at the time the email was originally sent, but it was subsequently upgraded from “unclassified” to “secret,” due to the possibility that it could compromise national security and damage foreign relations. The email containing the newly classified information was part of a chain of communication that originated with Bill Roebuck, then director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs. It related to the matter of who had provided information that the Libyan police used in order to arrest several people for their possible role in the attack.
In a July 7, 2015 interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar, Mrs. Clinton was asked about her decision to delete 33,000 emails while she was under investigation by a House panel. When she replied that other secretaries of state had done the “same thing,” Keilar asked if those others had also been subpoenaed. Clinton responded, “You’re starting with so many assumptions … I’ve never had a subpoena. Again, let’s take a deep breath here.” But soon thereafter, House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy set the record straight, pointing out that Clinton had in fact been subpoenaed in March 2015 (after reports surfaced that she had illegally maintained a personal email server). Nor was that the only time Clinton had been subpoenaed, as Gowdy went on to explain:
“It is a fact that there was a subpoena issued to her in March of 2015. But … it’s also a fact that there was a subpoena in existence from another Congressional committee far before that one. So there are two subpoenas. There are letters from Congress. And there’s a statutory obligation to her to preserve public records. There was a, — think back right after Benghazi, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton, in fact, saying Congress has the right and the authority to investigate these attacks. That is tantamount to a ‘do not destroy’ request. Also keep in mind, Congress wrote her directly when she was Secretary of State and asked her specifically, ‘Do you ever use personal email?’ She never answered that question. She never said yes, she never said no. All right, fast forward. The Oversight Committee is looking into Benghazi. They issued a subpoena to the State Department to bring certain documents over to Congress so we can inspect them. It is that subpoena that ultimately led the State Department to give us the first eight emails we got from her.
“There was another one to the State Department. In August of 2013, there were two subpoenas sent to the State Department, which are requests for documents. But as a result of that subpoena to the State Department, the State Department then produced to us her emails. So, there is no way to claim that there was not some legal process directing that those emails be retained and ultimately produced, because they were….
“There were two [subpoenas], one related to ARB [Accountability Review Board] documents, and one related to what we call reading room documents. And they were sent to the Department of State, asking that Congress be delivered these documents. Where that becomes important is, it was as a result of that Oversight subpoena that the Department of State first gave us any of her emails. So, clearly, her emails were covered by that subpoena, or the Department of State never would have given them to us. Now her out is going to be this, or what she thinks is her out, ‘Well, the State Department didn’t have my emails, I did.’ Which then moves us to the law, the statute, the regulation, which places on her an affirmative duty to protect and preserve public records. So, whether there’s a subpoena in place or not, the law is and has been in place, you have to preserve public record. She decided on her own what was and was not public record. And … what’s even worse than that, I mean, think when she left office. She left office in February of 2013, right? … She didn’t delete and wipe clean that server until the fall of 2014, 20 months later, after she left.”
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times reported that some of the information that passed through Mrs. Clinton’s private email server was in fact classified:
“Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems.
“Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.
“But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.
“‘This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,’ Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community….
“In their joint statement, the inspectors general said the classified information had originated with the nation’s intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency. It is against the law for someone to receive a classified document or briefing and then summarize that information in an unclassified email….
“Exactly how much classified information Mrs. Clinton had on the server is unclear. Investigators said they searched a small sample of 40 emails and found four that contained government secrets.”
In July 2015, two inspectors general asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information had been mishandled as a result of Mrs. Clinton’s improper use of a personal email account, which they (the inspectors general) believed contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”
On July 31, 2015, the Daily Mail reported that the State Department had newly released more than 1,300 additional emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, 41 of which contained classified material categorized as “confidential.”
On August 5, 2015, the New York Post reported that “he FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe.”
On August 6, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server was a violation of the Espionage Act:
“The Espionage Act, which is part of the U.S. criminal code, makes it a crime for any government employee, through ‘gross negligence,’ to allow national defense information ‘to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.’ Mrs. Clinton’s email on a private server was not in its proper place of custody and was at plenty of risk of being lost or stolen. We also know she edited some of the email that went to State, which means pieces of it have been destroyed.
“Plenty of government officials have been prosecuted for less. David Petraeus paid a fine and received two years of probation for allowing his mistress access to classified information. John Deutch, former director of the CIA, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and fine after his laptops were found to contain classified materials. Bill Clinton pardoned him on the last day of his Presidency.
“Marine Major Jason Brezler, who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, accidentally took home a few classified documents on his personal computer and sent one over personal email in response to an urgent inquiry. A Marine Corps board of inquiry recommended he be discharged for mishandling classified information.”
On August 11, 2015, the inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of the four classified emails that had been previously discovered on Mrs. Clinton’s private server, contained material that was classified as “Top Secret: Sensitive Compartmented Information” — the strictest of all security classifications. These two top-secret emails contained information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts.
Also on August 11, Mrs. Clinton finally agreed to turn over her private computer server to federal authorities. The transfer was made on August 12 through the Denver-based computer services firm Platte River Networks, which had managed Mrs. Clinton’s private email system since mid-2013. But when the server was given to federal authorities, it was blank, containing no useful information whatsoever. The Washington Post reported:
“After [Mrs. Clinton] left government service in early 2013, the Clintons decided to upgrade the system, hiring Platte River as the new manager of a privately managed e-mail network. The old server was removed from the Clinton home by Platte River and stored in a third party data center.”
Barbara J. Wells, an attorney representing Platte River Networks, said on August 12, 2015: “The information [on the private server] had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition [in June 2013]. To my knowledge the data on the old server is not available now on any servers or devices in Platte River Network’s control.”
During approximately this same time period, a Platte River employee transmitted an internal email that mentioned Mrs. Clinton’s February 2015 directive instructing the company not to save copies of any sent emails for more than 30 days. “Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy [sic] s*,” said that employee’s email.
A Daily Mail story from August 2015 indicated that Platte River Networks had a significant track record of corruption:
“The Internet company used by Hillary Clinton to maintain her private server was sued for stealing dozens of phone lines including some which were used by the White House.
“Platte River Networks is said to have illegally accessed the master database for all US phone numbers.
“It also seized 390 lines in a move that created chaos across the US government.
“Among the phone numbers which the company took — which all suddenly stopped working — were lines for White House military support desks, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, a lawsuit claims.
“Others were the main numbers for major financial institutions, hospitals and the help desk number for T2 Communications, the telecom firm which owned them.
“A lawsuit filed on behalf of T2 claims that the mess took 11 days to fix and demands that Platte River pay up $360,000 in compensation.”
On August 12, 2015, the Daily Mail reported thatin its review of more than 1,300 Clinton emails that the State Department had made public on July 31, it (the Daily Mail) had found an additional 41 containing information that was already considered classified before it was transmitted.
At an August 14, 2015 campaign event in Iowa, Clinton mocked Republicans for making an issue of her use of a private email server. Noting that she had recently opened a Snapchat account, Clinton joked: “I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves.”
On August 16, 2015, the Washington Times reported that through the end of July, the State Department’s ongoing review of the 30,000 work-related emails that Mrs. Clinton had turned over to authorities, had thus far found 60 emails containing classified secrets; almost all of those were at the lowest level of “confidential,” and one was at the intermediate level of “secret.” These 60 emails were separate from the two “top-secret” emails that had previously been found in recent days.
By August 18, 2015, the State Department revealed that the number of Hillary Clinton emails that had been flagged for containing potentially classified material had grown to 305 — or approximately 5.1% of all the emails that had been reviewed thus far.
In an August 18, 2015 press conference in in Las Vegas, Clinton shrugged off the questions regarding her use of a private email account. In particular, she made light of a reporter who asked if she had “wiped the server” clean. “What, like with a cloth or something?” the former secretary of state chuckled. “Well, no. I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
On August 19, 2015, The Hill reported that “State Department BlackBerry devices issued to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin have likely been destroyed or sold off, the department said in a court filing.” According to State Department Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus: “Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.” State Department spokesman John Kirby added: “They [the devices] belong to the United States government, and when you leave an agency you just turn it in. So yes, they were turned in. Where they are now I couldn’t begin to tell you. It’s also likely, because this was a while ago, that those devices may have been destroyed. I don’t have the records of it because they were old and outmoded and often times we purchase new devices.”
On August 20, 2015, the Clinton campaign finally admitted now that classified emails were indeed on the secretary of state’s private server, but claimed that those messages were not classified at the time. “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
But an August 21, 2015 Reuters report thoroughly discredited the Clinton campaign’s version of events. Said the report:
“While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as ‘Classified,’ it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.
“But the details included in those ‘Classified’ stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
“The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton’s emails from her time as the nation’s most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department’s own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
“In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department’s own ‘Classified’ stamps now identify as so-called ‘foreign government information.’ The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
“This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be ‘presumed’ classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.”
On September 2, 2015, the Daily Mail reported that Brian Pagliano, the State Department employee who had helped Hillary Clinton set up her controversial private email server, would plead the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid providing any testimony at his upcoming appearance before the Benghazi committee. Mrs. Clinton and her family had paid Pagliano with taxpayer dollars to maintain the server.
On September 2, 2015, Breitbart News reported that Mrs. Clinton had “paid to hide the identity of the people running her private email server” … while doing little to nothing to secure that information from hackers.” Said Breitbart:
“Clinton’s private email domain clintonemail.com was initially purchased by Clinton aide Eric Hoteham, who listed the Clintons’ Chappaqua, New York home as the contact address for his purchase. But the domain is actually registered to an Internet company designed to hide the true identity of the people running it. Clintonemail.com is currently registered to a company called Perfect Privacy, LLC. The company has a listed address of 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West in Jacksonville, Florida. But don’t try to get someone from ‘Perfect Privacy’ on the phone. The company merely serves to mask its clients’ personal information by providing its own meaningless contact information on official databases…. ‘We won’t reveal your identity unless required by law or if you breach our Perfect Privacy Service Agreement,’ the company explains [on its website]. Perfect Privacy, LLC is owned by Network Solutions, which in turn is owned by Web.com. Network Solutions advertises Perfect Privacy as a way to ‘Keep Your Contact Information Hidden With Private Registration.'”
In a September 4, 2015 television interview, Mrs. Clinton twice refused to apologize for her decision to keep sensitive emails on a private server during her years as secretary of state, saying only that she was “sorry that this has been confusing to people.” At one point, reporter Andrea Mitchell asked her specifically, “Are you sorry?” Clinton replied: “I take responsibility and it wasn’t the best choice,” adding that “I now disagree with the choice that I made.” “I did all my business on my personal email [in the Senate],” Clinton continued. “I was not thinking a lot when I got in [as secretary of state]. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think, ‘What kind of email system will there be?’ … This was fully above-board. People knew I was using a personal email. I did it for convenience.”
Notably, Clinton’s explanation came after a focus group of New Hampshire voters had dissected the potential efficacy of Clinton taking “responsibility” for her bad decision, while not actually apologizing.
In a September 8, 2015 televised interview with ABC News anchor David Muir, Mrs. Clinton changed her message slightly by offering her first actual apology for having used a private email server during her time as secretary of state. “That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,” she said.
Just a few hours later, however, Mrs. Clinton appeared on Ellen Degeneres’s television program, where she returned to her previous, weaker stance: “I made a mistake. I am sorry for all the confusion that has ensued. I take responsibility.”
Then, by 10:30 pm that night, Mrs. Clinton’s largest campaign email list had received a similarly parsed message from the candidate: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility…. My use of a personal email account was aboveboard and allowed under the State Department’s rules Everyone I communicated with in government was aware of it. And nothing I ever sent or received was marked classified at the time.”
On September 9, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry appointed longtime State Department official Janice Jacobs to serve as the “transparency coordinator” who would supervise the release of Mrs. Clinton’s emails to various public-record requests. Notably, Jacobs had given $2,700 to Clinton’s presidential campaign on June 22, the maximum allowed amount for an individual contribution.
On September 25, 2015, the Daily Mail reported on a newly discovered chain of emails that Mrs. Clinton had exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus between January 10 and February 1, 2009, when Petraeus headed the military’s U.S. Central Command which was responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mrs. Clinton had failed to turn over these emails when she provided what she said was the full record of her work-related correspondence as Secretary of State (SOS). Her term as SOS began on January 21, 2009 — approximately the midpoint of the time period during which her emails with Petraeus were exchanged.
On September 30, 2015, the State Department released a new batch of some 3,800 emails that originally had been held on Mrs. Clinton’s private server. Of those 3,800 emails, 215 were retroactively classified; three of them were marked ‘SECRET’ – one of the higher categories of classification that the government uses. These 215 emails raised the total number of classified emails that had been found on the Clinton server to more than 400.
Also on September 30, 2015, The Daily Mail reported that in a June 2011 email chain between Mrs. Clinton, her chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and senior aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan — all of whom likewise used private email accounts — Mills informed the group that her personal email account had been targeted by hackers, and she warned the others to keep their own accounts secret.
On September 30, 2015 as well, The Daily Mail reported that Russian-linked hackers had tried at least five times to gain access to Mrs. Clinton’s private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State. Said the report: “Clinton was sent five emails from hackers containing a virus disguised as a parking ticket from a town in New York state, where she lives. If opened, the attachments would have downloaded a virus on to her computer allowing someone to take control of it and potentially steal sensitive data. Researchers who analyzed the malicious software in September 2011 said that infected computers would transmit information from victims to at least three servers overseas, including one in Russia. However, that does not necessarily mean that Russian hackers, or government officials, were behind the stunt. This type of hacking attempt, known as phishing, is one of the least sophisticated ways to get access to someone’s PC, and so is unlikely to have come from the Kremlin.”
Also on September 30, 2015, TheWeeklyStandard.com reported that in a newly uncovered email from July 2011, Mrs. Clinton had joked about the possibility that the Chinese government may have hacked her email account: “Even weirder–I just checked and I do have your state but not your gmail–so how did that happen. Must be the Chinese!”
In October 2015, the Associated Press reported that according to data and documents the AP had reviewed, “[t]he private email server running in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home basement when she was secretary of state was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers.” Added the AP:
“Clinton’s server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012. Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn’t intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders….
“The AP exclusively reviewed numerous records from an Internet ‘census’ by an anonymous hacker-researcher, who three years ago used unsecured devices to scan hundreds of millions of Internet Protocol addresses for accessible doors, called ‘ports.’ Using a computer in Serbia, the hacker scanned Clinton’s basement server in Chappaqua at least twice, in August and December 2012….
“Remote-access software allows users to control another computer from afar. The programs are usually operated through an encrypted connection — called a virtual private network, or VPN. But Clinton’s system appeared to accept commands directly from the Internet without such protections.”
In November 2015, Breitbart.com reported that on July 27, 2011, Center For American Progress president and onetime Clinton adviser Neera Tanden had sent Clinton an email with the subject line “Fw: Exclusively For You.” The email said “Look what I’ve found” and “Here is a very nice offer. Enjoy!” with a link to a virus-infected spam link. Clinton opened the message and replied to tell Tanden that she had been “hacked.” Wrote Clinton: “Neera–did you send me this? If not, I think your email address book has been hacked. If so, why? Anyway, hope you’re well.”
By December 1, 2015, the number of classified emails that had been found on the Clinton server stood at 999.
In February 2016, Judicial Watch (JW) reported that in response to a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for State Department records, it had just received emails (dated January 23-24, 2009) disclosing plans by senior State Department officials to set up a “stand-alone PC” so that Secretary Clinton could check her emails in an office “across the hall” through a computer network system that was separate from the State Department system. Said JW: “These emails are shocking. They show the Obama State Department’s plan to set up non-government computers and a computer network for Hillary Clinton to bypass the State Department network. The fact that these records were withheld from the American people until now is scandalous and shows the criminal probe of Hillary Clinton’s email system should include current and former officials of the Obama administration.”
By February 26, 2016, it was known that at least 1,818 emails that Hillary Clinton had sent or received, contained classified material. By March 2, 2016, this number had risen to 2,079. This included 22 emails that were classified as “Top Secret”; 44 classified as “Secret”; 1,478 that contained classified “foreign government information”; 28 that contained classified information on “intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology”; and 4 that contained classified information on “vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security.” The figure did not include any classified material that may have been present in the 32,000 email messages that Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers had unilaterally deleted with no oversight. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton herself personally wrote 104 emails that contain classified information which she transmitted using her private server.
In March 2016, the Republican National Committee filed a pair of Freedom Of Information Act lawsuits requesting the release of emails and records that Clinton and her top aides exchanged during and after Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.
In May 2016, journalist Joseph Klein reported:
“Thousands of e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecured server, created while she served as Secretary of State, are reportedly in the possession of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). The SVR is said to have gained access to the e-mails, of which it made copies, through its monitoring of a Romanian computer hacker named Marcel Lazãr Lehel (aka Guccifer). Guccifer had learned about the existence of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail account after accessing the e-mails of her close confidante and informal adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, with whom Hillary had extensive correspondence during her term as Secretary of State.
“A report attributed to Russia’s Security Council indicates that an internal battle has broken out [between the Director of the FSB, Alexander Bortnikov, and Chairwoman of the Council of Federation, Valentina Matviyenko, over whether to publicly release the e-mails.] The latter had authorized a release of some of the e-mails to Russia Today (RT) back on March 20, 2013. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service director expressed alarm at the release, primarily because of concerns that the release would reveal to U.S. intelligence services how Russia used its monitoring of Guccifer to obtain Clinton’s e-mails. He had good reason to be concerned. U.S. authorities worked with their Romanian counterparts to follow the trail that led to Guccifer’s arrest in Romania.
“In March 2016, Chairwoman Matviyenko is said to have called for a total release of the e-mails, in part to influence the U.S. presidential election. Ms. Matvivenko reportedly cited Russian President Vladimir Putin’s positive statements about Donald Trump and claimed that Hillary Clinton was not liked by the Russian people.”
On May 25, 2016, the State Department’s Inspector General (IG) issued a scathing report showing that Mrs. Clinton had: (a) ignored government guidelines regarding the use of a private email server for government business; (b) never requested approval to use such a server (a request that absolutely would have been denied because of the security risks involved); (c) rejected Huma Abedin’s suggestion that she (Clinton) get on the State Department’s email server or make her private email address available to the entire department, saying, “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible”; (d) never demonstrated that her BlackBerry “met minimum information-security requirements”; (e) failed to report several known hacking attempts that had been made against her server; (f) provided investigators with tardy and “incomplete” records of her e-mails; and (g) ultimately refused to cooperate in the IG’s investigation.
According to a New York Post story: “At least two State Department staffers expressed concerns in late 2010 to the director of the agency’s Information Resources Management about Clinton’s odd e-mail arrangement. The IG said the staffers were told to hush up. ‘The director stated that the mission … is to support the secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal e-mail system again,’ the IG found.”
Notably, Clinton’s closest top aides — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Philippe Reines— also refused to be interviewed in the IG investigation.
In response to the IG report, Clinton said: “I have talked about this for many, many months. I testified for 11 hours before the Benghazi committee. I have answered numerous questions. We have posted information on our website and the information that we had is out there. It’s been clearly public and my email use was widely known throughout the department, throughout the government, and I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I’ve asked that they be made public.”
In early June 2016, the State Department said it would take 75 years to complete the release of some 450,000 pages of emails that Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Jacob Sullivan and Patrick Kennedy had exchanged with Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. Said the State Department in a filing: “Given the Department’s current [Freedom of Information Act] workload and the complexity of these documents, it can process about 500 pages a month, meaning it would take approximately 16-and-2/3 years to complete the review of the Mills documents, 33-and-1/3 years to finish the review of the Sullivan documents, and 25 years to wrap up the review of the Kennedy documents — or 75 years in total.”
On June 8, 2016, the Associated Press reported that Clinton’s use of a private email server may well have compromised the names of CIA agents:
“The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton’s private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship. At least 47 of the emails contain the notation ‘B3 CIA PERS/ORG,’ which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton’s server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.”
During a 90-minute, closed-door deposition with Judicial Watch on June 22, 2016, Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano — who had played a major role in setting up Clinton’s personal email server — invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 125 times, reading the same statement off of an index card on each occasion. Reported Fox News: “He was deposed as part of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking Clinton emails and other records. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited ‘reasonable suspicion’ Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law.”
Also in June 2016, the Justice Department filed a brief on behalf of the State Department asking for an additional 27 months to gather together the 34,000 emails that had been sent, during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, to the Clinton Foundation by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador at Large Melanne Verveerher, and Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced in essence that Hillary Clinton’s email transgressions violated the Espionage Act but refused to recommend that she be indicted for her crimes.
At a press conference where no questions were taken from the press, Comey carefully explained that the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee committed all the elements of the crime of improperly handling national security secrets. (Comey’s full prepared remarks are available here.)
“There is evidence that [Secretary Clinton or her colleagues] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said. “For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. … None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”
Despite all of this, Clinton should not be prosecuted, Comey said, because there was no “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
But under the Espionage Act statute, “gross negligence” – not whatever Clinton or her underlings may have intended – is the relevant legal test. In other words, to help Clinton evade charges, “the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require,” former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote.
Adding this new intent element made no sense, McCarthy wrote: “The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. [emphases in original]
McCarthy interpreted Comey’s remarks to amount to an informal indictment of Clinton: “Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.”
According to McCarthy, the FBI director “even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was ‘extremely careless’ and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.”
Nevertheless, Comey declared that there was no evidence of “efforts to obstruct justice.”
Key excerpts from Comey’s remarks at the July 5 press conference included the following:
Comey concluded his remarks by recommending that Clinton not be indicted:
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”
On July 12, 2016, the New York Post reported: “In an unusual move, FBI agents working the Hillary Clinton e-mail case had to sign a special form reminding them not to blab about the probe to anyone unless called to testify. Sources said they had never heard of the ‘Case Briefing Acknowledgment’ form being used before….” A retired FBI chief commented, “This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others.” Similarly, an active agent with the Bureau stated: “I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange.” Moreover, a number of FBI agents expressed their “disappointment” over Comey’s decision not to recommend indictment. “FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one source, while a source from the Justice Department claimed to be “furious” with Comey, saying that the director had “managed to piss off right and left.”
Also on July 12, 2016, Clinton’s attorneys submitted a legal filing in an effort to thwart a request by Judicial Watch for an order forcing her to submit to a deposition iin a civil lawsuit related to her private email arrangement.
In June 2017, the government watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained a highly significant Clinton email correspondence through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department. The newly discovered document showed that in 2009 the former Secretary of State had willfully ignored her security advisors and continued using an unsecured BlackBerry to handle federal business:
In response to this revelation, Judicial Watch said: “The new document brings the known total to date to at least 433 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, ‘as far as she knew,’ all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.”
On September 1, 2017, CBS News published a bombshell story revealing that according top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, “fired FBI Director James Comey [had] drafted a statement to announce the conclusion in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server before the FBI interviewed key witnesses, including Hillary Clinton herself.” Added CBS: “Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, reached that conclusion from transcripts of interviews with people close to Comey and provided by the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Those transcripts, the Republicans said in a [August 31] letter to current FBI Director Chris Wray, show Comey had already drafted a conclusion for his investigation before interviewing 17 key witnesses, including Clinton, and before the DOJ had reached immunity agreements with former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.” One unnamed individual who was interviewed about the matter said that, to the best of his or her recollection, Comey had written his statement sometime “in early May of 2016.”
On August 27, 2018, the Daily Caller reported:
“A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C. area hacked Hillary Clinton’s private server throughout her term as secretary of state and obtained nearly all her emails, two sources briefed on the matter told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The Chinese firm obtained Clinton’s emails in real time as she sent and received communications and documents through her personal server, according to the sources, who said the hacking was conducted as part of an intelligence operation. The Chinese wrote code that was embedded in the server, which was kept in Clinton’s residence in upstate New York. The code generated an instant ‘courtesy copy’ for nearly all of her emails and forwarded them to the Chinese company, according to the sources.”
According to the same article, the Intelligence Community Inspector General “discovered the anomaly pretty early in 2015.” Moreover, it refuted claims in which Mrs. Clinton, President Obama, and former FBI Director James Comey had each maintained that Clinton had not compromised American national security.
In a video announcing her candidacy on April 12, 2015, Mrs. Clinton said:
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion. So you can do more than just get by, you can get ahead and stay ahead, because when families are strong, America is strong.”
During an April 16, 2015 talk in Norwalk, Iowa, in which she promoted the idea that immigrants had always come to the United States in pursuit of economic opportunity, Mrs. Clinton repeated a claim she had made in a 2014 speech as well – that all four of her grandparents had immigrated to the United States. Said Clinton:
“We are turning down people [immigrants] who really want to work. I mean, they are here to work. And a lot of them now have children who are American citizens and they are doing the best they can to try to make a good life for themselves and their families. And you know, I think if we were to just go around this room, there are a lot of immigrant stories. All my grandparents, you know, came over here, and you know my grandfather went to work in a lace mill in Scranton, Pennsylvania and worked there until he retired at 65…. So I sit here and I think, well, you’re talking about the second, third generation. That’s me, that’s you. And we are saying to all these other people who want the same dreams and the same aspirations and the willingness to work hard just like our families did that no, we’re not going to make it easy for you, we’re not going to make it legal for you. And I just think that’s such a short term, unfortunate outcome for us and well as for you.”
But in fact, only one of Mrs. Clinton’s grandparents – her paternal grandfather, Hugh Rodham Sr. – was born outside outside of the United States (in England). Her paternal grandmother was born in Pennsylvania in 1882; her maternal grandmother was born in Illinois in 1902; and her maternal grandfather was born in Illinois in 1918.
In an effort to subsequently explain away Mrs. Clinton’s lie, her spokesperson said that “her [Clinton’s] grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result, she has always thought of them as immigrants.”
During her first week as a 2016 presidential candidate, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the wealthy and powerful, saying: “The deck is stacked in their favor. My job is to reshuffle the cards.” She spoke about the importance of “toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent.
In an April 23, 2015 speech at the “Women in the World” summit in New York City, Mrs. Clinton emphasized the need to overhaul “religious beliefs” in order to protect women’s rights to birth control, abortion and “health care.” She also spoke of the need to help illegal-immigrant woment become U.S. citizens, and of how women are victimized by widespread discrimination in the workplace. Asserting that “far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth,” she stated that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” in order to give women full access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.” Defending illegal immigrants, she impugned “those who offer themselves as leaders who would deport mothers working to give their children a better life, rather than risk the ire of talk radio…. We move forward when women who came to this country in search of a better life can earn a path to citizenship.” She also derided the Christian-run company Hobby Lobby for waging a legal battle designed to evade the Obamacare mandate that would have forced the company to provide its employees with health insurance that covered the costs of contraception and abortifacients. “There are those who offer themselves as leaders,” said Clinton, “… who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay, who offer themselves as leaders who would de-fund the country’s leading provider of family planning [a reference to Planned Parenthood, America’s leading abortion mill] and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women [for abortifacients] just because of our gender.”
In April 2015, as the city of Baltimore was being overrun by black riots in response to the death of a black criminal suspect while he was in police custody, Mrs. Clinton — in a keynote speech at the David N. Dinkins Leadership & Public Policy Forum, took the occasion to call for an end to “mass incarceration,” and for reforms to the criminal-justice system. Her remarks included the following:
[Y]et again, the family of a young black man is grieving a life cut short. Yet again, the streets of an American city are marred by violence. By shattered glass and shouts of anger and shows of force. Yet again a community is reeling, its fault lines laid bare and its bonds of trust and respect frayed. Yet again, brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty. What we’ve seen in Baltimore should, indeed does, tear at our soul.
And, from Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable.
Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford.
Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old.
Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city.
And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody.
Not only as a mother and a grandmother but as a citizen, a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families.
We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.
There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts.
There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. And an estimated 1.5 million black men are “missing” from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death.
There is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in Baltimore can’t find a job.
There is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities.
We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again….
[L]et’s remember that everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law. That is what we have to work towards in Baltimore and across our country….
We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans…. The inequities that persist in our justice system undermine this shared vision of what America can be and should be.
I learned this firsthand as a young attorney just out of law school… Then, as director of the University of Arkansas School of Law’s legal aid clinic, I advocated on behalf of prison inmates and poor families. I saw repeatedly how our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable.
I saw how families could be and were torn apart by excessive incarceration. I saw the toll on children growing up in homes shattered by poverty and prison….
We also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stalks our streets. Because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice system if you also don’t talk about what’s needed to provide economic opportunity, better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children….
The second area where we need to chart a new course is how we approach punishment and prison.
It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.
Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts.
Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities.
One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.
When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we’re talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers.
They’re not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound.
Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty.
And it’s not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment.
And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison.
The price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year—and up to $60,000 in some states. That’s the salary of a teacher or police officer.
One year in a New Jersey state prison costs $44,000—more than the annual tuition at Princeton.
If the United States brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago, we’d save an estimated $28 billion a year. And I believe we would not be less safe. You can pay a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 billion to help us deal with the pipeline issues.
It’s time to change our approach. It’s time to end the era of mass incarceration. We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe.
In May 2015, Mrs. Clinton announced that she favored “a full and equal path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants in the United States. This was a dramatic departure from her stated position in 2008, when she did not even support the mainstream Democratic position of permitting illegals to have driver’s licenses. She pledged that if she were to be elected president, she would extend the Obama executive orders (DACA and DAPA) that protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation for a period of two years. “I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship,” Clinton told a Las Vegas roundtable of illegal immigrant high-school students. “I want to do everything we can to defend the president’s executive orders … As president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further.”
In addition, Clinton said:
On a separate occasion, Clinton said: “I am going to back and support what President Obama has done to protect DREAMers and their families, to use executive action to prevent deportation,” Clinton said to applause. “And I have said that if we cannot get comprehensive immigration reform as we need, and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy — then I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama, to make sure law-abiding, decent, hard-working people in this country are not ripped away from their families.”
In an October 2015 interview with the Spanish-language television station Telemundo, Clinton said: “The deportation laws were interpreted and enforced, you know, very aggressively during the last six and a half years, which I think his administration did in part to try to get Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform. That strategy is no longer workable. So therefore I think we have to go back to being a much less harsh and aggressive enforcer.” She lamented that too many “upright, productive people” with minor offenses on their criminal records had been “hauled in and deported. And I’ve met their wives and their children. And I just don’t believe in that.” If elected president, Clinton added, she would make it a priority to direct the Department of Homeland Security to “take a hard look about how we change the way the laws are applied.”
These remarks were a stark contrast from Mrs. Clinton’s position in 2003, when she had told the John Gambling Radio Show: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants. Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders. And people have to stop employing illegal immigrants.”ays that Republican presidential candidates “range across a spectrum of hostility” when it comes to immigration and that her campaign will advocate for comprehensive reforms.
**In a June 2015 national television interview with CNN, Clinton was asked about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recent comments about the undesirability of many Mexican immigrants. She replied: “I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying ‘Enough, stop it.’ But they are all in the same general area on immigration. They don’t want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants. And I’m going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. I’m going to talk about all the good, law-abiding, productive members of the immigrant community that I personally know, that I’ve met over the course of my life. That I would like to see have a path to citizenship.”
Clinton went on to describe Republicans as being “on a spectrum of hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours. All the way to kind of grudging acceptance but refusal to go with a pathway to citizenship. I think that’s a mistake.” She added: “We know we’re not going to deport 11 or 12 million people. We shouldn’t be breaking up families. We shouldn’t be stopping people from having the opportunity to be fully integrated legally within our country. It’s good for us, it’s good economically, it’s good for the taxes that will be legally collected. It’s good for the children so that they can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. So I am 100 percent behind comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.”
Shortly before taping the CNN interview, Mrs. Clinton had made similar charges against Republican candidates to a larger group of reporters: “How many people running on the Republican side try to demean immigrants, insult immigrants, cast aspersions on immigrants? They know as well as we know, we are not going to deport 11 or 12 million people living here. I hear the Republican candidates — and it’s not even the most vitriolic — none of them any longer support a path to citizenship. All of them would basically consign immigrants to second-class status.”
In May 2015, it was learned that Bill and Hillary Clinton had been using WJC, LLC — a “pass-through” shell company with no employees or financial assets — to channel payments to the former president for consulting and other services that he provided. It was structured as a limited liability company, which allowed it to provide the Clintons with tax advantages as well as some legal protections.
WJC, LLC was originally set up in Delaware on December 3, 2008 — two days after President Barack Obama had announced Hillary Clinton as his choice for secretary of state. WJC, LLC was subsequently transferred to New York in 2009, and then returned to Delaware in 2013 — with Bill Clinton signing a document as its “authorizing person.” Because it had no assets, the presidential campaign that Hillary Clinton had recently launched (in April 2015) did not — and was not obligated to — report the existence of the company in the former Secretary of State’s financial-disclosure documents. Nor was it known how much money the Clintons routed through WJC, LLC.**
In a June 2015 address at the Conference of Black mayors (in San Francisco), Mrs. Clinton said the following:
“Race remains a deep fault line in America. Millions of people of color still experience racism in their everyday lives. Here are some facts. In America today, Blacks are nearly three times as likely as whites to be denied a mortgage. In 2013, the median wealth of Black families was around $11,000. For white families, it was more than $134,000. Nearly half of all Black families have lived in poor neighborhoods for at least two generations, compared to just 7 percent of white families. African American men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men, 10 percent longer for the same crimes in the federal system. In America today, our schools are more segregated than they were in the 1960s.
“How can any of that be true? How can it be true that Black children are 500 percent more likely to die from asthma than white kids? Five hundred percent! More than a half century after Dr. King marched and Rosa Parks sat and John Lewis bled, after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and so much else, how can any of these things be true? But they are. And our problem is not all kooks and Klansman. It’s also in the cruel joke that goes unchallenged. It’s in the off-hand comments about not wanting ‘those people’ in the neighborhood. Let’s be honest: For a lot of well-meaning, open-minded white people, the sight of a young Black man in a hoodie still evokes a twinge of fear. And news reports about poverty and crime and discrimination evoke sympathy, even empathy, but too rarely do they spur us to action or prompt us to question our own assumptions and privilege. We can’t hide from any of these hard truths about race and justice in America. We have to name them and own them and then change them.”
In a speech in Houston in early June 2015, Mrs. Clinton attacked some of her potential Republican presidential opponents for Voter ID laws that had been enacted in their states, and advocated automatic voter registration nationwide when people turn 18. “I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say,” she said.
Scholar Hans von Spakovsky wrote the following about Mrs. Clinton’s proposal: “[T]his could result in the registration of large numbers of ineligible voters, such as non-citizens, as well as duplicate registrations of the same individual in the same state or in multiple states. Universal, automatic registration is an invitation to increased voter fraud. What is truly ironic about this proposal is that many of the same groups pushing automatic registration oppose states’ attempts to verify the citizenship, identity, and accuracy of registration information by comparing it to other government databases, because they complain about errors and inaccuracies in those same databases.”
Mrs. Clinton has called for the passage of a federal law that would restore voting rights for all convicted felons. But the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves that authority exclusively for the states. Felon voting is not a federal government issue.
Moreover, Clinton wants to mandate a 20-day early-voting period nationwide, in order to “give more citizens the chance to participate.”
In July 2015, the PACs America Rising and Women Speak Out released a new report that chronicled the longstanding close relationship that Mrs. Clinton has had with the nation’s largest abortion provider, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). The report points out, among other things, that:
* The Clintons have accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from PPFA and its employees.
* PPFA actively lobbied Mrs. Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State and received tens of millions of taxpayer dollars from USAID.
* PPFA is a key player in a network of far-left groups supporting Mrs. Clinton’s political career with hundreds of millions of dollars pledged.
* Mrs. Clinton has received PPFA’s highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award. (Over the years, Clinton has said: (a) “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” (b) “When I think about what [Sanger] did all those years ago in Brooklyn, I am really in awe of her. And there are a lot of lessons we that can learn from her life and the cause she launched and fought for and sacrificed so greatly.”
In August 2015, Mrs. Clinton held an impromptu, videotaped conversation with three Black lives Matter activists who complained about the injustice of the “mass incarceration” of African Americans. In her response, Clinton said: “This country has still not recovered from its original sin [slavery] … Your analysis is totally fair. It’s historically fair, it’s psychologically fair, it’s economically fair. But you’re gonna have to come together as a movement and say, ‘here’s what we want done about it. Because you can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium, and a million more like it, who are going to say, ‘oh, we get it, we get it, we’re going to be be nicer.’ Okay? That’s not enough … All I’m suggesting is, even for us sinners [white people], find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people’s lives. And that’s what I would love to, you know, have your thoughts about, because that’s what I’m trying to figure out how to do.”
At an August 28, 2015 press conference in Minneapolis, Mrs. Clinton was asked how she planned to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States. Without offering any plan of her own, she instantly condemned a Republican rival’s plan to deport such illegals. “I find it the height of irony,” said Clinton, “that a party which espouses small government would want to unleash a massive law enforcement effort — including perhaps National Guard and others — to go and literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces … Round them up, put them, I don’t know, in buses, boxcars, in order to take them across our border.”
As Breitbart News subsequently observed: “The picture Clinton paints of placing people in boxcars is a potent one because, during World War II, Jews were forced into boxcars and transported to Nazi concentration camps as part of Hilter’s final solution. Clinton’s choice of the words appears extemporaneous but not accidental. She mentions buses then pauses and adds ‘boxcars,’ rather than simply saying ‘trains.'”
On September 30, 2015, The Daily Mail reported that a Hillary Clinton campaign worker who was helping Hispanics in Las Vegas fill out voter-registration forms, had been caught on hidden-camera video committing a felony by telling the registrants which candidate they should support at the polls. Specifically, the footage showed Clinton campaign “fellow” Henry Engelstein:
During an April 2016 interview with the New York Daily News, Mrs. Clinton said that her tax proposals would increase taxes on the American people by more than $1 trillion over the ensuing ten years. “I have connected up my proposals for the kind of investments I want to make with the taxes that I think have to be raised,” she said. “So on individual pieces of my agenda, I try to demonstrate clearly that I have a way for paying for paid family leave, for example, for debt-free tuition. So I would spend about $100 billion a year. And I think it’s affordable, and I think it’s a smart way to make investments, to go back to our economic discussion, that will contribute to growing the economy.” Specifically, Clinton’s tax plan included the following elements:
During a June 8, 2016 interview on PBS News Hour, Mrs. Clinton spoke as if the September 11, 2012 terrorist killings of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods at the American mission in Benghazi had never occurred. As she discussed the Obama administration’s decisions in Libya with Judy Woodruff, Clinton said: “Well, first of all, it’s important to remember where we were and why the president made the decision he did, because this was a presidential decision. I’ve advised the president. Sometimes, he follows my advice. Sometimes, he doesn’t. Sometimes, he uses a combination of what he hears from his advisers. We were looking at a potential disaster, as Qaddafi threatened to massacre large numbers of his population. The Europeans, our Arab allies were urging us to help them to try to prevent that. After due diligence, we came up with a way of supporting their efforts that did not cost a single American life. And we saved a lot of Libyan lives.”
In a June 2016 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Clinton twice refused to say whether she believes the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Clinton had previously voiced her disagreement with the Supreme Court’s “terrible” ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that individuals indeed have a right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. But she had also said that she did not wish to “abolish” the Second Amendment. Seeking clarification, Stephanopoulos asked Clinton: “I want to ask you a specific question. Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right – that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” Clinton replied evasively, saying that “there was no argument until [Heller] that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.” It was an evasive answer that would satisfied some TV journalists, but unfortunately for Clinton, Stephanopoulos had done his homework. “But that’s not what I asked,” Stephanopoulos said, repeating his original question: “Do you believe that [the court’s] conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton replied: “If it’s a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic….”
On June 10, 2016, ABC News reported:
“Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff. The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to ‘protect the name’ of the Secretary, ‘stall’ the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later. Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
“A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues. ‘We had no idea who he was,’ one board member told ABC News.
“Fernando’s lack of any known background in nuclear security caught the attention of several board members, and when ABC News first contacted the State Department in August 2011 seeking a copy of his resume, the emails show that confusion ensued among the career government officials who work with the advisory panel. ‘I have spoken to [State Department official and ISAB Executive Director Richard Hartman] privately, and it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of,’ wrote Jamie Mannina, the press aide who fielded the ABC News request. ‘We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response.’ ‘As you can see from the attached, it’s natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members,’ Mannina wrote, referring to an attachment that was not included in the recent document release….
“Fernando’s history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific — and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid…. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.
“The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show…. The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to ‘S’; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State. ‘The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,’ wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. ‘Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.’ Mills, a former deputy White House counsel, was serving as Clinton’s chief of staff at the time, and has been a longtime legal and political advisor….
“Twice, Mannina was instructed to stall with ABC News, before Mills sent a public statement. It announced Fernando’s abrupt decision to step down.”
In a June 2016 campaign speech, Clinton said: “I’ve said throughout this campaign that my mission as president will be to help create more good paying jobs so we can get incomes rising for hard working families across America. It’s a pretty simple formula. Higher wages lead to more demand, which leads to more jobs with higher wages.”
On June 20, 2016, the hacker known as “Guccifer2.0” released a hacked, 42-page, 22,000-word Democrat National Committee memo that listed a multitude of scandal-related facts about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation that the DNC viewed as political “vulnerabilities” for the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee. For details regarding scandals related specifically to the Clinton Foundation, click here.
TheSmokingGun.com, meanwhile, published the following information which was contained in the hacked DNC files, about Hillary Clinton’s extravagant demands vis-a-vis her travel and speechmaking activities:
Along with Clinton’s tax returns, personal financial disclosure reports, and U.S. Senate travel records, the DNC dossier included copies of contract documents related to the presidential candidate’s paid speeches. In addition to a “standard” $225,000 fee, Clinton required a “chartered roundtrip private jet” that needed to be a Gulfstream 450 or a larger aircraft. Depending on its outfitting, the Gulfstream jet, which costs upwards of $40 million, can seat 19 passengers and “sleeps up to six.” Clinton’s contract also stipulated that speech hosts had to pay for separate first class or business airfare for three of her aides.
As for lodging, Clinton required “a presidential suite” and up to “three (3) adjoining or contiguous rooms for her travel aides” and up to two extra rooms for advance staff. The host was also responsible for the Clinton travel party’s ground transportation, meals, and “phone charges/cell phones.” Additionally, the host also had to pay “a flat fee of $1000” for a stenographer to create “an immediate transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks.” The contract adds, however, “We will be unable to share a copy of the transcript following the event.”
To view Guccifer2.0’s entire dossier on Hillary Clinton, click here.
On July 7, 2016, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists held anti-police-brutality demonstrations in numerous cities across the United States, to protest two recent incidents where white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana had shot and killed black suspects. At one of those demonstrations — in Dallas, Texas — marchers shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” Then, suddenly, at just before 9 pm, a black gunman opened fire on the law-enforcement officers who were on duty at that rally. Five officers were killed, and seven additional police were wounded. The following day, Mrs. Clinton issued the following remarks:
On July 18, 2016 — the day after a black gunman had shot and murdered three police officers in Baton Rouge, and eleven days after a Black Lives Matter supporter had shot and murdered five police officers in Dallas — Mrs. Clinton delivered a campaign speech to the NAACP, in which she emphasized the injustices of the American criminal-justice system. Aside from some initial remarks lauding the bravery of police officers, the importance of the work they do, and the unacceptability of violence against the police, her remarks included the following:
At a September 2016 political fundraiser in New York City, Clinton said: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
Below is information that was learned as a result of private emails that were hacked and made public by WikiLeaks in 2016.
• In a March 1, 2016 email to John Podesta
• In an April 24, 2013 speech to the National Multi-Housing Council, Hillary Clinton said: “But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”
• In a May 16, 2013 speech to a Brazilian bank, Clinton said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
• In an August 19, 2014 email to John Podesta, Hillary Clinton made reference to “the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” This is significant because the Clinton Foundation had accepted millions of dollars in donations from those governments.
• Marina Santos – the maid who cleaned Mrs. Clinton’s Washington, DC home (known as Whitehaven) – to print out sensitive government emails and fax documents — including some that contained classified information — though Ms. Santos lacked the security clearance necessary to handle such material. Clinton also gave Santos access to a
• In a July 4, 2015 email to Podesta and other Clinton insiders, Xochitl Hinojosa, the Clinton presidential campaign’s director of coalitions press, made explicit reference to bird-dogging: “Engage immigrant rights organizations. DREAMers have been bird dogging Republican presidential candidates on DACA/DAPA, but they’ve learned to respond. There’s an opportunity to bird dog and record questions about Trump’s comments and connect it to the policy.”
The term “bird-dogging” first came to widespread public attention in October 2016, when investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s “Project Veritas Action” (PVA) released a series of undercover, hidden-camera videos showing that Democrat operative Robert Creamer was a leading orchestrator of an initiative where the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign had been using trained provocateurs to instigate violence and chaos at Republican events nationwide – especially at rallies for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence – throughout that year’s election cycle.One video segment featured one of Creamer’s consultants, Scott Foval explaining that his own consulting firm, the Foval Group, played a key role in training and organizing the aforementioned provocateurs to carry out a Creamer-approved tactic called “bird-dogging,” whereby these Creamer/Foval operatives planned, in advance, their confrontations with carefully selected, targeted individuals. Said Foval: “So the term bird-dogging, you put people in the line at the front, which means they have to get there at six o’clock in the morning because they have to get in front of the rally, so what when Trump comes down the rope line they’re the ones asking him the question in front of the reporters, because they’re pre-placed there. To funnel that kind of operation, you have to start back with people two weeks ahead of time and train them how to ask questions. You have to train them to bird-dog.” The purpose of bird-dogging, said Foval in the video, was to create a public perception of “anarchy” around Trump, on the theory that its shock value would undermine his political support.
Foval also explained that the Democrat bird-dogging operation was structured in a manner that – if the public were ever to find out about it – would allow the DNC and the Clinton campaign to pretend that they knew nothing about it. “The thing that we have to watch is making sure there’s a double-blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we’re doing,” said Foval. “There’s a double-blind there, so that they can plausibly deny that they heard anything about it.” To help ensure that this plausible deniability was not in any way compromised, Democratic funding for the Foval Group was channeled through a highly circuitous path. Said Foval: “The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground.”
In yet another video clip, Foval shed light on the relationship that existed between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the Creamer/Foval tactics: “We are contracted directly with the DNC and the campaign. I am contracted to [Robert Creamer] but I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of special events and political for the campaign. Through Bob. We have certain people who do not get to talk to them, at all.”
In 2016, WikiLeaks revealed that in an August 17, 2014 email to John Podesta, Hillary Clinton sent – from her private, unsecured email server – U.S. intelligence and war plans to Podesta’s hacked email account. Among the specific, top-secret pieces of information she conveyed to Podesta were the following:
• “In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff, did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be airlifted directly into the KRG zone.”
• “Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best temporary solutions.”
In a series of April 2015 email exchanges, Clinton insiders discussed the feasibility of illegally accepting foreign donations to Clinton’s presidential campaign. Some key excerpts written by those insiders included the following:
• “Take the money!!”• “I feel like we are leaving a good amount of money on the table (both for primary and general, and then DNC and state parties)… and how do we explain to people that we’ll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the Foundation takes $ from foreign govts but we now won’t.”• “Responding to all on this. I was not on the call this morning, but I lean away from a bright line rule here. It seems odd to say that someone who represents Alberta, Canada can’t give, but a lobbyist for Phillip Morris can. Just as we vet lobbyists case by case, I would do the same with FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act].”• “If we do it case by case, then it will be subjective. We would look at who the donor is and what foreign entity they are registered for. In judging whether to take the money, we would consider the relationship between that country and the United States, its relationship to the State Department during Hillary’s time as Secretary, and its relationship, if any, to the Foundation. In judging the individual, we would look at their history of support for political candidates generally and Hillary’s past campaigns specifically. Put simply, we would use the same criteria we use for lobbyists, except with a somewhat more stringent screen. As a legal matter, I am not saying we have to do this – we can decide to simply ban foreign registrants entirely. I’m just offering this up as a middle ground.”• “[W]e really need to make a final decision on this. We’re getting to the point of no return”• “I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?”
• “We’re consistently flagging more FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] registrants daily. In terms of # – we’re at 27 out of 370 prospective bundlers – but to Jesse’s question – that does not represent the costs of how much these folks would likely raise. If we were looking at these folks below on a case by case basis, I’d want to specifically raise: Tony Podesta (Iraq, Azerbaijan, Egypt), Ben Barnes (Libya), John Merrigan (UAE), Wyeth Weidman (Libya), and Mike Driver (UAE connections)….”
On October 17, 2016, the New York Post reported: “A top State Department official offered a ‘quid pro quo’ to an FBI investigator to declassify an e-mail from Hillary Clinton’s private server in exchange for allowing the bureau to operate in countries where it was banned, stunning new documents revealed Monday. The FBI documents show that Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pitched the deal to the unnamed agent, allegedly as part of an effort to back up Clinton’s claim that she did not send or receive classified documents on the server in her Westchester home.” According to the documents:
• “[REDACTED] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ [REDACTED] advised that in exchange for marking the e-mail unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”
• One State Department staffer reported feeling “immense pressure” to complete the review quickly and to not label anything as classified.
• “[REDACTED] believes STATE has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON e-mails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON.”
• Kennedy wanted one particular piece of information changed to an obscure classification code called B9 – which is normally used to protect the secrecy of geological and geophysical data and maps pertaining to oil and gas wells – to “allow him to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”
• A group of ranking State Department officials — dubbed “the shadow government” — met on a weekly basis to discuss the Clinton e-mail scandal.
In a January 18, 2015 email to John Podesta and Robby Mook, Huma Abedin wrote that the King of Morocco – a nation where human rights abuses were widespread – had agreed to give the Clinton Foundation $12 million in exchange for a meeting with Hillary; this occurred 6 months before Morocco acquired weapons from the United states. Wrote Abedin: “Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc [Hillary Rodham Clinton] was not part if it, meeting was a non-starter. CGI [Clinton Global Initiative] also wasn’t pushing for a meeting in Morocco and it wasn’t their first choice. This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it.”
• In a September 15, 2015 email, John Podesta wrote: “I mean it makes my life more difficult after telling every reporter I know she’s actually progressive but that is really the smallest of issues. It worries me more that she doesn’t seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment.” This email was consistent with a Huma Abedin email which said that “she [Hillary] is often confused.”
• “Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.”
• “any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya? Worth analyzing for future purposes.”
In response, Podesta wrote: “Yes and interesting but not for this channel.”
• It is illegal for a political campaign to coordinate its activities with those of a SuperPAC, but a number of hacked emails that were made public by WikiLeaks show that on a number of occasions, Clinton presidential campaign officials such as Robby Mook met with SuperPAC personnel like Kim Kaufmann, the head of Priorities USA (a Hillary Clinton SuperPAC).
• In a May 6, 2015 email to Podesta and other Clinton insiders, Jennifer Palmieri, communications director of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, expressed concern that the New York Times might publish a story revealing illegal coordination between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Priorities USA SuperPAC. The Times ultimately spiked the story, however, to protect Clinton.
• An attachment to a December 1, 2015 email that Democrat fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner sent to Podesta, made it clear that the Clinton SuperPAC known as Correct The Record (CTR) was directly coordinating with the Hillary presidential campaign against federal campaign law. Said the attachment: “In May of 2015, CTR separated from its parent organization, American Bridge, and became its own SuperPAC. This structure allows CTR to retain its independence but coordinate directly and strategically with the Hillary campaign. This work is necessary now more than ever.”
• In a March 13, 2016 email to Podesta, a Clinton campaign insider said: “Beyond this Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does.”
Over the years, Mrs. Clinton has received many donations from high-ranking officials and/or board members of Islamist organizations. Specifically, from 2000-2019 she received a total of $144,908 in contributions from individuals affiliated with the Muslim Students Association, SAAR Foundation (SAFA Trust Group), the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Association for Palestine, the American Muslims for Palestine, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
In early February 2017, issued an on-camera statement in which she said, “Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that, yes, the future is female.” Clinton added: “Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month as women organized a march that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world. Now more than ever we need to stay focused on this year’s [MAKERS] conference: Be bold. We need strong women to step up and speak out. We need you to dare greatly and lead boldly. So please, set an example for every woman and girl out there who’s worried about what the future holds and wonders whether our rights, opportunities and values will endure. And remember, you are the heroes and history makers, the glass ceiling breakers of the future. As I’ve said before, I’ll say again, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world.”
On May 15, 2017, Mrs. Clinton launched Onward Together (OT), an organization whose name was derived from Clinton’s presidential campaign theme, “Stronger Together.” From its inception, OT’s stated purpose was to “advance progressive values” by encouraging ordinary people to become politically engaged in grassroots opposition to President Donald Trump’s policies.
In the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s failed attempt to use specious sexual assault charges to block the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked Mrs. Clinton to comment on various recent instances where leftist protesters had disrupted the Senate’s Kavanaugh hearings, had tried to intimidate Republican senators, and had engaged in acts of lawlessness to vent their rage. Mrs. Clinton replied: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
 Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1999), p. 59.
 Ibid., p. 37.
 Ibid., pp. 59-61.
 Ibid., pp. 56, 62.
 Ibid., pp. 102-104.
 Ibid., pp. 105-107.
 Ibid., pp. 120-122.
 Ibid., p. 128.
 Ibid., pp. 128-129.
 Ibid., pp. 129-130.
 Amanda B. Carpenter, Dossier on Hillary Clinton (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006), p. 162.
 Ibid., pp. 162-163.
 Ibid., p. 56.
 Ibid., p. 125.
 Ibid., p. 126.
 Ibid., p. 131.
 Ibid., pp. 131-132.
 Cited in David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party, p. 53.
 The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that Mrs. Clinton “must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on ‘The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections).’” That government report showed that minority voter turnout nationwide had been surging in recent years. Black Americans, for example, had a voter turnout rate of just 53 percent in 1996. But that rate increased in each of the next four presidential elections. Said WSJ: “In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.”