The Trump campaign sent out a series of email and Twitter responses during Hillary Clinton’s speech attacking his business record, and among them was this claim that came to our attention. As usual, the Trump campaign did not respond to our request for supporting information. During his speech the next day attacking Clinton’s record as secretary of state, Trump repeated the charge that Clinton treated the State Department as her “personal hedge fund” with no evidence to back it up, either.
This talking point traces back to information from Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” In one chapter, in discussing Bill Clinton’s role with Laureate Education, Inc., Schweizer describes a “Clinton blur” between the activities of Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But critics, including Schweizer, have not been able to prove quid pro quo.
The short answer here is: Laureate Education Inc. did not receive $55.2 million in grants from the State Department while Bill Clinton was being paid by the company. This talking point actually conflates two organizations that are independent of each other, and is worth unraveling for our readers. So we explored it.[...]
What is the point of all the negative articles about Trump? Do you really believe that Hillary is better? Why bring articles from extreme Leftist sources such as the Washington Pest?
ReplyDeleteThe current Republican party is a disgrace and has kowtowed to Obama on every point. Ryan hasn't provided the least bit of resistance to the most outrageous of any Democratic initiatives including Planned Parenthood and the insane global warming fiasco. There is no hope in the Republican party for a decent replacement for Trump.
Trump has flaws but his program of halting Muslim immigration until they can be vetted for terrorists is primary for the safety of America. His support of good trade deals and interest in the advancement of American industry rather than its destruction for support of extreme environmental it the right move to improve America's economy. No one else comes close for these issues.
Trump is a Democrat plant. He campaigned as a xenophobic nutbar to attract that segment of the population to the GOP and overwhelmed native GOP'ers to take the nomination while bragging of his endless money source to finance his campaign.
ReplyDeleteNow that he's the expected GOP candidate things have suddenly changed. He's short on money, his campaign team is falling apart and he's changed his attack from accusative and racist comments into lies which can be easily refuted. All designed to make himself crash and burn, leaving the GOP without any other options.
so it is alright for Trump to lie because he has the better program?! I don't think Clinton is a great choice and I cited an article from the Observer - why not the Washington Post.
ReplyDeleteSorry but Trump can not use any and all tactics to win - "because he has a better program"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2
ReplyDeleteGood article about Clinton Cash corruption.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fact-checking-the-washington-post-fact-checker-on-mrs-clintons-emails/
Article about how much the WP fact checker can be believed.
Well, at least you are consistent, in the you think that the Washington Post is "extreme Leftist" and that the current Republican party is too aligned with Obama. Entirely and thoroughly wrong on both counts, but at least consistent.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not alright to lie, so in Shomayim they'll mun him....what does it have to do with me? He's the better choice for the job. ...all other politics, hype and hot air are irrelevant
ReplyDeleteTrump fact sheet on Clinton:
ReplyDeletehttps://assets.donaldjtrump.com/ClintonFacts.pdf
It's interesting that you are so convinced of your totally corrupt point of view. Pay attention to what's going on and your view is likely to change.
ReplyDeleteAre you really saying Trump "lied" because the Washington Post liberal dirtrag says "there is no proof conflating the 2 issues"??? How stupid do you think we are??? Or do you really in your heart believe there was no quid pro quo??
ReplyDeleteAnd here is an article from the rabid leftist Wall Street Journal about the disaster known as Trump's economic "plan."
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/26/study-sees-debt-jumping-under-trump-staying-steady-under-clinton/
Here is an article about the top Hillary Clinton lies.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.westernjournalism.com/top-7-hillary-clinton-lies-liberal-medias-trying-hide/
The lie that she put out about the Benghazi attack because of a video violated the rule that milsa davida ligluyei lo mishakri inshi. She was so unconcerned about being caught in an open lie that she released this massive lie to the entire United States without any concern about being caught on it.
the facts as presented by the Trump camp are lies. You want to show how they can be tweaked and come out true on some level because in other situations the Clintons are corrupt?! That is basically saying that Trump has the right to say - "I need not tell the truth because the only issue is that I win and it doesn't matter how."
ReplyDeleteI assume that your very pleased with the wonderful way that Obama's surreptitious recession is proceeding.
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/06/10/oh-boy-was-a-national-security-position-given-as-payback-for-clinton-foundation-donor-n2176502
ReplyDeleteProve you are fair and balanced - highlight this article Rabbi.
Read the comments on the article and you will see that many are unhappy with the poor analysis. Additionally, it would be ridiculous for a candidate to put out a detailed economic plan at this point. Trump is known for picking capable people and he would get the economy in shape rather than subjecting it to the radical agenda of the current government that pushes hand outs to millions of illegal aliens, destroys viable businesses such as the coal industry and wastes money profligately on failed solar companies and failed websites among other things.
ReplyDeletein you really think I need to prove something to you - then please go find another blog to read.
ReplyDelete1: "Known for picking capable people." You are really on today. His campaign manager is someone who has not worked a campaign in 20 years and his communications director is a 26 year-old who he shlepped from his reality TV show. Why? Because no experienced Republicans are willing to work with him. 2: Trump is a total ignoramus. He does not know anything about foreign policy. He does not know anything about most domestic issues. He could not note even one element of Ryan's domestic policy agenda. He was unfamiliar with the basic terminology concerning America's nuclear capabilities. He makes up his positions on important matters on the spot and then has to backtrack them the next day, over and over again (e.g., punishment for women having abortions, who exactly is he going to restrict from immigrating, what he plans to do with those currently in the country illegeally, etc. etc. etc.).. He has entered bankruptcy several times, will not release his tax returns because then everyone will know that his claim of being a billionaire is total nonsense, and to boot, he is the most vulgar person to ever run for president, at least in terms of his public discourse. But hey, at least he isn't Hillary, right?
ReplyDelete3: Your comments about "failed solar companies and failed websites" demonstrate your total lack of understanding as well. Those were part of a program that invested in many many ventures. The program as a whole realized a profit. So what that there were some misses in there? Is there any investor that hits a home run every time?
Compared to the mess Bush got us into in '08, I am quite pleased.
ReplyDeleteIf by "change" you mean that I will suddenly think that Trump is more qualified to be president than my 7-year-old, than no, it will not change.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct - it is your blog and you do not have to prove anything and can publish what you want of course. I did not state my point well. I still think this is good article to highlight.
ReplyDeleteso why didn't you say so - will get to it later tonight
ReplyDeleteHow about Hillary's picks for her campaign. Huma Abedin, the wife of the disgraced Weiner, is well know for her strong familial Muslim brotherhood connections. This gives them more of an inside shot into the White House. Susan Rice is a well accomplished bold faced liar. The Blumenthal family is famous for their anti Israel and anti Semitic opinions.
ReplyDeleteHillary totally failed in her 3 AM response to Benghazi. The whole reason Stevens was there was to provide arms to the Syrian rebels who were the precursors to ISIS. She wanted all the people in Lybia to die in that raid so that her malfeasance would be covered up and it was arranged. She is the author of the disastrous Arab Spring which has released a whirlwind of Islamic terror and upset formerly friendly Middle East regimes. She failed totally in her healthcare reform efforts under her husband. She arranged for the sale of at least 20% of the United States Uranium, a crucial military resource, to the Soviet Union due to large donations to the Clinton foundation.
There is no need to review Hillary's plans. She is a proven disastrous failure with a long resume of disasters to her discredit.
Show proof that there were successes among the failures. The horribly overpriced gross failed original website of Obamacare was a masterpiece of failure and outrageous overprice paid to a brother in color of Obama. The 3 billion dollar price far exceeds the price of any major decent website in recent memory. His foolish destruction of the coal industry and his overall attack on industry in America with his outrageously burdensome environmental insanity is his own personal stamp of drag on America's economy.
Bush was the worst Republican president in recent history and a major cause for the onset of Obama. Obama has done nothing to correct Bush's foolishness.
ReplyDeleteHere is a very revealing article about what we would face with the Democratic party platform by Ben Shapiro
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailywire.com/news/6965/9-insane-things-new-democratic-party-platform-ben-shapiro
In this article, Caroline Glick points out Obama's plan to undermine Israel's self defense and also the treason of many of Israel's generals.
ReplyDeletehttp://carolineglick.com/obamas-money-and-israels-sovereignty/
and therefore what?
ReplyDeleteJust another indication of what we would face under Hillary and that unfortunately Israel also has issues to be concerned about in the coming election.
ReplyDeleteIsrael clearly has concerns about either candidate
ReplyDeleteOf the 17 candidates in republican primaries, would you have voted for any of them verses Hillary Clinton? Please answer honestly. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWith Obama clone Hillary they have existing issues. What proven issues do they have with Trump?
ReplyDeleteToday there's a wall street scandal about goldman sachs giving a good recommendation for the tesla purchase of solar one. Same problem like these two 'education' entities. They're separate corporations, but family ownership. Using funds (actually stock) from one to bail out the other. Here , using grants for one organization (actually a for profit) to fund (and receive grants) for the other. Probably completely legal, but lacking public disclosure (or at least disclosure to the state department, which should disclose to the public.)
ReplyDeleteAnd a few million for bill to talk to some students? Sounds very very funny to me.
Party platforms are irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember who all seventeen were, but of those who made it to the later stages, I would have considered Kasich, and perhaps Rubio, before he lowered the political discourse to heretofore unseen depths.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, cut it with the "please answer honestly" nonsense. It is patronizing.
Why? Don't you believe what they want what they are espousing?
ReplyDeleteFourty years ago today (roman calendar) the air france jet landed in benghazi to refuel on its way to what turnedout to be xxx.
ReplyDeleteToday, we are more and more sure hillary would have responded to that (figurative) 3AM phone call with a 'let them take off', not our problem. And trump would have said 'blow out the tires', which is the correct response today of military officials.
Because party platforms are not binding on anyone. In fact, they are usually the method by which the winning candidate assuages their opponents. The give them a say in writing the platform in return for their support. Whoever the president is follows his or her own policies and does not have to pay any attention tot the platform.
ReplyDeleteThis may be true but it certainly shows the direction that they are heading.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. The platform is changed at each convention, usually to appease the losers of the primary. And once again, it is not binding on anyone, certainly not the nominee/president.
ReplyDelete