842 Bill Clinton wears an Israeli button at Democratic National Convention

Bill Clinton wears an Israeli button at Democratic National Convention

Newsletter published on 3 August 2017

(1) Hillary email released by Wikileaks says civil war in Syria the
"best way to help Israel"
(2) Hillary: US sponsors terrorism in the Middle East to "protect" Israel
(3) Hillary talks Israeli security. Nothing about Peace or Israeli
settlements. Just Israeli security
(4) Bill Clinton wears an Israeli button at Democratic National Convention
(5) Why Bill Clinton’s Hebrew Hillary button resonated - Jewish
Telegraph Agency
(6) Jews versus Trump - Israel Shamir
(7) Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
(8) Kaine (Hillary's choice for VP) supports TPP, deregulation of Wall
St - Michael Hudson
(9) Michael Hudson on Hillary's Foundation: she mixes diplomacy &
fund-raising
(10) IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation

(1) Hillary email released by Wikileaks says civil war in Syria the
"best way to help Israel"

From: John Cameron <blackheathbooks@internode.on.net> Subject: VIPER'S
ALL Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:23:33 +1000

The Wikileaks email is at https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

http://newobserveronline.com/clinton-destroy-syria-israel/

Clinton: Destroy Syria for Israel

MAY 22, 2016

BY TNO STAFF

A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama
administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the
"best way to help Israel."

In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also
wrote that it was the "right thing" to personally threaten Bashar
Assad’s family with death.

In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton
says that the "best way to help Israel" is to "use force" in Syria to
overthrow the government.

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State
under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar
over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served
as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000,
this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in
particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west
over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact
sent on December 31, 2012.

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very
beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically
to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability
is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,"
Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.

Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran’s "atom
bomb" program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International
Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to "justify"
destroying Syria in the name of Israel.

She specifically links Iran’s mythical atom bomb program to Syria
because, she says, Iran’s "atom bomb" program threatens Israel’s
"monopoly" on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would
allow Syria (and other "adversaries of Israel" such as Saudi Arabia and
Egypt) to "go nuclear as well," all of which would threaten Israel’s
interests.

Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but
they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot
talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear
monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and
Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear
balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with
conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran
would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah
to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a
deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the "strategic relationship between Iran and
the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria" that makes it possible for Iran to
undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a "direct attack," Clinton admits,
because "in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel" this
has never occurred, but through its alleged "proxies."

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s
leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s
security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its
nuclear monopoly.

Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common
view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action
could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad "and his
family" with violence is the "right thing" to do:

In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with
Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force
will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind. [...]

(2) Hillary: US sponsors terrorism in the Middle East to "protect" Israel

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-destroy-syria-for-israel-the-best-way-to-help-israel/5515741

Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria for Israel: "The Best Way to Help Israel"

The New Observer 20 March 2016

Global Research, March 22, 2016

A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama
administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the
"best way to help Israel."

In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also
wrote that it was the "right thing" to personally threaten Bashar
Assad’s family with death.

In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton
says that the "best way to help Israel" is to "use force" in Syria to
overthrow the government.

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State
under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar
over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served
as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000,
this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in
particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west
over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact
sent on December 31, 2012.

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very
beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically
to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability
is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,"
Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. [...]

     Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected,
but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but
cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

     An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that
nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi
Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a
precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to
provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as
it can today.

     If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state,
Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and
Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve
as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the "strategic relationship between Iran and
the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria" that makes it possible for Iran to
undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a "direct attack," Clinton admits,
because "in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel" this
has never occurred, but through its alleged "proxies."

     The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance.
Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its
interests.

     Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s
security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its
nuclear monopoly.

     Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a
common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military
action could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad "and his
family" with violence is the "right thing" to do:

     In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed
with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

     With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of
force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government
has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East,
and all in order to "protect" Israel. [...]

(3) Hillary talks Israeli security. Nothing about Peace or Israeli
settlements. Just Israeli security

http://www.jta.org/2016/07/29/news-opinion/politics/on-her-big-night-hillary-clinton-stresses-israels-security-not-the-quest-for-peace

On her big night, Hillary Clinton stresses Israel’s security, not the
quest for peace

By Ami Eden

July 29, 2016 12:29pm

It was Hillary Clinton’s night, but the Rev. William Barber II was the
sleeper star.

The self-described "theologically conservative, liberal, evangelical
biblicist" drew repeated, enthusiastic applause –including when he
described Jesus as a brown-skinned Palestinian Jew and declared that
"when we love the Jewish child and the Palestinian child … we are
reviving the heart of our democracy."

With his focus on commonality instead of grievances (terrorism,
occupation), Barber seemed to hit the sweet spot that could excite
everyone in the arena, from Bernie supporters to old-school pro-Israel
Democrats. The Clinton and Sanders camps took a similar approach to the
Israel section of the party platform — focusing primarily on the mutual
benefits of a two-state solution.

So it was striking later in the night when Clinton got to her Israel
line: "I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without
firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting
Israel’s security."

No talk of a two-state solution or kick-starting Israeli-Palestinian
issues. Nothing about Israeli settlements. Just Israeli security. ...

(4) Bill Clinton wears an Israeli button at Democratic National Convention

http://www.jta.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bill.jpg

{Why did he wear it? To suck up to the Lobby. Americans can't read
Hebrew, they would not notice this badge, with its implication of
treachery and betrayal. But Jews would get the point - that he's in
their pocket - and back Hillary - Peter M.}

(5) Why Bill Clinton’s Hebrew Hillary button resonated - Jewish
Telegraph Agency

http://www.jta.org/2016/07/28/news-opinion/politics/why-bill-clintons-hebrew-hillary-button-resonated

Why Bill Clinton’s Hebrew Hillary button resonated

By Ron Kampeas

Jewish Telegraph Agency

July 28, 2016 5:25pm

Bill Clinton sporting a Hebrew Hillary Clinton button on Wednesday July
27 2016 at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. (MSNBC)
<http://www.jta.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bill.jpg>

PHILADELPHIA (JTA) — There was a thrill ride on Jewish Democratic social
media Wednesday night when Bill Clinton was spotted at the Democratic
National Convention sporting a button backing his wife – in Hebrew.

Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman, indulged in a little
partisan kvelling when he appeared Thursday with Israeli Ambassador Ron
Dermer on a panel.

"What a remarkable statement for America that a former president of the
United States could wear that," said Wexler, who now directs the Center
for Middle East Peace.

(6) Jews versus Trump - Israel Shamir
From: "Israel Shamir adam@israelshamir.net [shamireaders]"
<shamireaders-noreply@yahoogroups.com>  Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:36:28
+0200 Subject: [shamireaders] Jews versus Trump - my new article for you

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-secret-of-identity-politics/
http://www.israelshamir.com/article/the-secret-of-identity-politics/

The Secret of Identity Politics

Israel Shamir

UNZ Review

JULY 26, 2016

The Jews can be a formidable enemy: devoid of scruples, they hunt in
packs. Like aunts in P G Wodehouse’ fiction, they do not stoop to fair
play: they go for the jugular. The hunt for disobedient leaders is their
favourite national sport; and woe to a politician who crosses their
path. They occupy commanding heights in the US media and finance and
they can undermine politicians susceptible to pressure.

Luckily, they can be defeated. Powerful and cunning, Jews are not
demonic and possess no magical superhuman powers. They are a force among
many forces. Time and again they reached the pinnacle of power and were
dislodged. This may happen to them in the US, as well.

It will not be the end of the world, nor the end of history, neither the
end of the Jews. Only the Jewish dream to end history will end, at least
for a while, while the world will go on. For their attitude is not all
bad; they are needed; just their dominance became too total. For America
and mankind to thrive, it must be rolled back, not eliminated.

The best politicians are those who succeed in repulsing a concerted
Jewish action without giving an inch AND without antagonising the Jews
too much. FDR and JFK, even Richard Nixon did it, so can Donald Trump.

The Donald succeeded in doing just that in the affair of the six-pointed
star. He was attacked; ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt
<http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.729420> urged
Trump to apologize. "He should just admit the offense and apologize,"
Greenblatt said in an interview on "CNN Tonight". "I think this would
satisfy all of the public – on the right and the left, Democrats and
Republicans."

Trump refused to apologise. He insisted that the star is just a star. He
even took his staff to task for removing the offending image. He did not
restore it, true, but he volubly scolded an easy-to-bend assistant. This
ability to withstand pressure is the most encouraging feature of Mr Trump.

Just compare him with Jeremy Corbyn who took the bait and began to
apologise, expel his supporters and demonstrate that he is unable to
withstand Jewish pressure. It did not help him at all, the attacks on
him grew exponentially.

Trump did not apologise, for it would never satisfy the Jewish appetite
for apologies. They always fish for an apology, and an apology always
makes them ask for more, and more. The ADL, the notorious organisation
that spied on activists, ran its own spies and provocateurs, is the
leading tool in this endless search for apology. Refuse apology,
otherwise you invite more pressure for more apologies.

There is a long list of things
<http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.729654> Jews
would like him to apologise for: (1) Trump tried to avoid denouncing
David Duke for as long as he could; (2) he has said nothing about the
racists and anti-Semites; (3) he refused to criticize the anti-Semitic
trolls who hounded journalist Julia Ioffe after her magazine portrait
that Trump’s wife Melania did not like and (4) he has said nothing about
the vicious anti-Semitic social media bombardment of any Jewish
journalist who happens to write a bad word about him; (5) he has refused
to let go of the slogan "America First" even though he must surely
realize by now that it carries a specific anti-Semitic historical
connotation; (6) he repeatedly lauds tyrants and dictators that are
problematic for Jews, including Benito Mussolini and Saddam Hussein; (7)
and he himself has been known to release the occasional anti-Semitic
remark, including his assertion to the Republican Jewish Coalition, that
Jews won’t support him because they can’t control him because they can’t
buy him with money.

This list of Trump’s failings with Jews (by an American Jew called Chemi
Shalev) is intentionally humiliating in precluding any chance for
rapprochement between the Jews and Trump.

Trump has no chance with Jews anyway, not for a lack of trying. Surely
he is not an "antisemite" (a silly word of no meaning, just like
"fascist"). Stephen Sniegoski onvincingly
<http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_trump_antisemite.htm> proves
that Trump is rather a philo- than anti-Semite. Trump’s kids married to
Jews, his son-in-law is not only a rich Jew but (1) a son of a convicted
Jewish swindler, (2) synagogue goer and (3) a newspaper owner, (4)
publishing anti-Trump
<http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-dismantling-of-dnc-is-clear-attack-by-putin-on-clinton/>
smear jobs, meaning he is a proper pukka Jew. Trump is as pro-Israel as
they make them. Actually, my friends who are Jewish settlers in the
occupied West Bank hope and pray for his victory. Sniegoski carefully
debunks all other accusations against Trump as an enemy of Jews, and he
does it compellingly.

Trump has no chance with the Jews, because he wants to change the order
of things while the Jews are perfectly satisfied with the way things
are. Perhaps you do not like that the US is flooded with immigrants,
that so many Americans became poor, that students are indebted forever,
that industries went abroad, that bankers are awash with money while the
workers are impoverished. But for Jews, this is fine. This is exactly
what they want, and this is what they have.

A prominent American Jew,
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.732745> Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie
explained that much in an article in the Haaretz newspaper: Trump’s
policies are beside the point. He would like to change things, he will
fight the supremacy of the Supreme Court with its inbuilt Jewish
majority, and Jews are for things being the way they are, perhaps even
more so. Indeed every possible step of President Trump will run into the
Supreme Court. This is a body where an unelected (Clinton-appointed)
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg already declared she will
fight him tooth and claw. That is the body that gave you gay marriages,
unlimited immigration and other liberal joys. Sooner or later Trump will
have to borrow
<http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-people-will-decide-in-turkey/> a page
from President Erdogan’s book and deal with them, if he is to achieve
anything: unless, surely, they will refrain from action.

The Jews will give 90 per cent of their vote to Hillary Clinton,
predicts Yoffie. This is to be expected: the brave Jewish anti-Zionist
Jeff Blankfort wrote of the "actual owners of the Democratic Party, the
American Jewish Establishment". Yes, Jews vote for Democrats. They gave
80 per cent of their vote to Barack Obama. By comparison, the old
masters of the US, WASPs, gave Obama just 34 per cent of their vote. If
they were still at the helm, there would be no President Obama, no
destruction of Syria and Libya, there would be fewer immigrants and the
life of an average American would be better. Oh, perhaps there would not
be an order allowing boys to pee in girls’ bathrooms if they feel
girlish. Big loss.

The problem is that the Jews have much more than just their votes at
their disposal. One of their mighty tools is the Google, their joint
venture with the CIA. This works overtime and offers twenty million hits
for "Trump Hitler", seven times more than the Bing search engine.
Google’s search function
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/google-hilters-birthday-and-you-get-a-very-unexpected-result/>
delivers results related to Donald Trump when users search for Adolf
Hitler. The search "When was Hitler born?" generated not only the
expected information on Hitler, but also a Donald Trump image and link.
Jewish-owned media produces much anti-Trump trash.

But the people do not believe them anymore. Even such a pleasant guy as
Bernie Sanders in the end gave up the fight and endorsed Crooked
Hillary. Now people know the Jews are a force for status quo, and they
want to change it.

For this purpose, a simple rhetorical device called Identity Politics
should be dismantled. It is an enemy device made by a Gramsci blueprint
in order to delegitimise the working class.

Identity politics is an extension of Jewish tactics, or perhaps Jewish
tactics is a particularly loathsome form of Identity politics. A Jewish
bankster defends himself by accusing his adversaries of antisemitism.
This is so simple and useful, that many other groups copycatted the
trick. The protected groups form a coalition under the Dem Party
umbrella, while the Dem Party is doing the will of the Jewish
establishment, as we noted above.

Identity politics have been enforced as the ultimate truth in the US.
The protected groups are attacked for what they are, according to this
concept, while unprotected suffer for what they do. This distinction is
pure sophism: were the Japanese in Hiroshima incinerated for what they
are (Japanese) or what they did (pretty much nothing)? If we disagree
with Jewish politics, is that because of what they are or what they do?

Identity politics forbid us to generalise regarding the protected
groups. You can’t say anything less than complimentary about Jews, for
they are all so different. Well, 90% vote for the status quo is not a
sign of variety. You can’t say anything at all about gender groups for
they are what they are, like Lord Almighty. Indeed "white", "male" and
"Christian" are the only identities you may freely and gratuitously
abuse in the US.

Consider the Catholic Church in the US. The Jews demanded an apology
from the Church, and they got it. Afterwards, they continued their fight
against the church unabated. In a recent attack on the VP candidate Mike
Pence, the Jews made
<http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/15/sundown-in-indiana-how-mike-pence-enshrined-bigotry-and-discrimination-into-law/>
a lot of mileage from his attempt to allow Christians to refuse service
to same-sex couples. They compared this attempt with Ku Klux Klan of old
and with discrimination of Jim Crow days, when they had signs "Don’t let
the sun go down on you here" and "Whites Only After Dark." Everything
goes to smear the church – and the PC rules do not defend it, like they
do not defend the white workers of Detroit.

The Jews hate the church like the Turkish generals hate the mosque. For
this reason they are so upset with Trump’s idea of limiting
non-Christian immigration. It is not that they like Muslims: surely they
do not, but they like to use Muslims to fight the Church.

Instead of saying "We Jews do not like to see Christian signs for
Christmas" they prefer to say "Muslims do not like…" This is not even
true: Muslims do celebrate Christmas, as anyone can witness in
Bethlehem; but it sounds better.

Here is anecdotal evidence. I receive daily email with the Boston Globe
headlines and suggested articles. Invariably their "Recommended for you"
section begins with an anti-Church article published 14 (fourteen) years
ago. Recommended for you JAN. 6, 2002 | PART 1 OF 2 Church allowed abuse
by priest for years

I wonder why they think it is necessary for me to read an old antiquated
anti-Christian abuse? Would they ever suggest I re-read a story of
Bernie Madoff? Or a story of a Jewish terror attack on King David Hotel
with its hundred victims? I do not think so.

It is not the first time ever that the Jews have acted in concert and
against majority wishes. A great politician should know how to deal with
them. Such a politician was Vladimir Lenin. In 1913, when his party
struggled with the consolidated Jewish group called the Bund, he
<http://www.israelshamir.net/Left/Left1.htm> wrote "Dear comrades, if we
shall keep mum today, tomorrow the Jewish Marxists will ride on our
backs". This advice is as relevant today as ever.

(7) Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/22/good-as-goldman-hillary-and-wall-street/

by Jeffrey St. Clair

July 22, 2016

Nothing seems to rattle Hillary Clinton quite so much as pointed
questions about her personal finances. How much she’s made. How she made
it. Where it all came from. From her miraculous adventures in the cattle
futures market to the Whitewater real estate scam, many of the most
venal Clinton scandals down the decades have involved Hillary’s
financial entanglements and the serpentine measures she has taken to
conceal them from public scrutiny.

Hillary is both driven to acquire money and emits a faint whiff of guilt
about having hoarded so much of it. One might be tempted to ascribe her
squeamishness about wealth to her rigid Methodism, but her friends say
that Hillary’s covetousness derives from a deep obsession with feeling
secure, which makes a kind of sense given Bill’s free-wheeling
proclivities. She’s not, after all, a child of the Depression, but a
baby boomer. Hillary was raised in comfortable circumstances in the
Chicago suburbs and, unlike her husband, has never in her life felt the
sting of want.

Mrs. Clinton’s stubborn refusal to disclose the text of her three
speeches to Goldman Sachs executives in the fall of 2013 fits this
self-destructive pattern of greed and guilt. She was fortunate that
Bernie Sanders proved too feeble a candidate to seize the advantage.
Each time Sanders was asked to show a nexus between the $675,000 she was
paid and any political favors to the financial vultures at Goldman, the
senator froze, proving strangely incapable of driving a stake into the
heart of her campaign.

A less paranoid politician would have simply released the tedious
transcripts of the speeches on a Friday evening to bore insomniac
readers to sleep. The real question, of course, was never about the
content of the speeches, but about why Goldman was paying her $225,000
an hour to give them. Goldman executives weren’t huddling around Mrs.
Clinton to listen to her recite the obscurantist mish-mash
ghost-dictated by her top economic advisor Alan Blinder. Blinder, a
well-known Wall Street commodity himself, is a former vice-chair of the
Federal Reserve and co-founder of Promontory Interfinancial Network, a
regulatory arbitrage outfit whose top executives pocket $30 million a
year. Blinder has publicly assured his Wall Street pals that Clinton
will not under any circumstances break up the big banks and neither will
she seek to reanimate Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era regulatory
measure whose exsanguination by her husband enabled the financial
looting by firms like Goldman and Lehman Brothers that spurred the
global economic collapse of 2008.

The lavish fee from Goldman for Hillary’s speeches was both a gratuity
for past loyalty and a down payment on future services. Goldman’s ties
to the Clintons date back at least to 1985, when Goldman executives
began pumping money into the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council,
a kind of proto-SuperPac for the advancement of neoliberalism. Behind
its "third-way" politics smokescreen, the DLC was shaking down
corporations and Wall Street financiers to fund the campaigns of
business-friendly "New" Democrats such as Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

The DLC served as the political launching pad for the Clintons, boosting
them out of the obscurity of the Arkansas dog-patch into the rarified
orbit of the Georgetown cocktail circuit and the Wall Street money
movers. By the time Bill rambled through his interminable keynote speech
at the 1988 Democratic Convention in Atlanta, the Clintons’ Faustian
pact with Goldman had already been inked, their political souls cleansed
of any vestiges of the primitive southern populism Clinton had exploited
so effortlessly during his first term as governor.

In 1991, the Clintons traveled to Manhattan, where they tested the
waters for Bill’s then rather improbable presidential bid. At a dinner
meeting with Goldman’s co-chair Robert Rubin, Clinton made his case as a
more pliant political vessel than George H.W. Bush, who many of the
younger Wall Street raiders had soured on. Rubin emerged from the dinner
so impressed that he agreed to serve as one of the campaign’s top
economic advisors. More crucially, Rubin soon began orchestrating a
riptide of Wall Street money into Clinton’s campaign war chest, not only
from Goldman but also from other banking and investment titans, such as
Lehman Brothers and Citibank, who were eager to see the loosening of
federal financial regulations. With Rubin priming the pump, Clinton’s
campaign coffers soon dwarfed his rivals and enabled him to survive the
sex scandals that detonated on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.

After his election, Clinton swiftly returned the favor checking off one
item after another on Rubin’s wish list, often at the expense of the few
morsels he’d tossed to the progressive base of the party. In a rare fit
of pique, Clinton erupted during one meeting of his National Economic
Council, which Rubin chaired, in the first fraught year of his
presidency by yelling: "You mean my entire agenda has been turned over
to the fucking bond market?" Surely, Bill meant this as a rhetorical
question.

When the time came to do the serious business of deregulating the
financial sector, Rubin migrated from the shadows of the NEC to become
Treasury Secretary, where he oversaw the implementation of NAFTA, the
immiseration of the Mexican economy, imposed shock therapy on the
struggling Russian economy, blocked the regulation of credit derivatives
and gutted Glass-Steagall. When Rubin left the Treasury to cash in on
his work at Citigroup, Clinton called him "the greatest secretary of the
Treasury since Alexander Hamilton." Nine years later, following the
greatest upward transfer of wealth in history, the global economy was in
ruins, with Clinton, Rubin and Goldman Sachs’ fingerprints all over the
carnage.

In mid-May, Hillary announced her intention to make Bill the "economic
czar" for her administration. This served to quell any anxiety that she
might have been infected during the primary campaign by the Sanders
virus. For Wall Street, the Clintons are still as good as Goldman. Quid
pro quo.

(8) Kaine (Hillary's choice for VP) supports TPP, deregulation of Wall
St - Michael Hudson

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/obama-said-hillary-will-continue-his-legacy-and-indeed-she-will/

July 29, 2016

Obama Said Hillary will Continue His Legacy and Indeed She Will!

by Michael Hudson

Leading up to Monday’s Democratic Party convention, Hillary chose Blue
Dog Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia as her VP. This was followed by the
Wikileaks release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) e-mail files
showing it acting as the Clinton Campaign Committee even to the point of
using the same lawyers as her own campaign to oppose Bernie Sanders.

The response across the Democratic neocon spectrum, from Anne Applebaum
at the Washington Post to red-baiting Paul Krugman and the Sunday talk
shows it was suggested that behind the Wikileaks to release DNC e-mails
was a Russian plot to help elect Trump as their agent. Former US
ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul lent his tattered reputation to
claim that Putin must have sponsored the hackers who exposed the DNC
dirty tricks against Bernie.

The attack on Trump was of course aimed at Sanders. At first it didn’t
take off. Enough delegates threatened to boo DNC head (and payday-loan
lobbyist) Debbie Wasserman Schultz off stage if she showed her face at
the podium to gavel the convention to order. The down-note would have
threatened the "United Together" theme, so she was forced to resign. But
Hillary rewarded her loyalty by naming her honorary chairman of her own
presidential campaign! If you’re loyal, you get a pay-off. The DNC was
doing what it was supposed to do. No reform seems likely.

The Democratic machine orchestrated a media campaign to distract
attention by attributing the leaks were to a Russian plot to undermine
American democracy (as if the e-mails did not show how undemocratic the
DNC had operated in stacking the primaries). A vote against Hillary
would be a vote for Trump – and a vote for Trump would really be for
Putin. And as Hillary had explained earlier, Putin = Hitler. The media
let it be known that attacking Wasserman Schultz – and by extension,
Hillary’s neocon policies – makes one a Russian dupe. This theme colored
the entire convention week.

Endorsing Hillary’s presidential bid on Monday evening, Sanders joined
in the chorus that this November will pit Good against Evil – or as Ray
McGovern put it on RT’s Cross Talk, at least proxies for Netanyahu vs.
Putin. Wall Street Senator Chuck Schumer went on TV to heave a sigh of
relief that the party was indeed united together.

Many Sanders’ supporters felt no obligation to follow his obeisance.
Many walked out after he closed Tuesday’s state-by-state roll call by
throwing his support behind Clinton. Others chanted "Lock Her Up".

VP Kaine as Hillary’s stand-in if she’s indicted or seems unelectable

The potential "Hillary Republicans" who are turning away from Trump –
whose ranks include Mike Bloomberg, the neocon Kagan family (Robert and
Victoria Nuland) and William Kristol – far outnumber the Sanders
supporters who may stay home or vote for Jill Stein on the Green Party
ticket. Hillary sees more votes (and certainly more campaign
contributions and future "speaking fees") from the Koch Brothers, George
Soros, Wall Street, Saudi Arabia and the corporatist Chamber of Commerce.

Kaine recently has fought to "free" small and medium-sized banks from
being subject to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. He has long
supported the TPP, deregulation of Wall Street, and most everything that
Sanders opposes. Appointed as DNC head by President Obama in 2008, he
dismantled Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, not bothering to fight
Republicans in the South and other solid Republican states. His move let
them elect governors who gerrymandered their voting districts after the
2010 census.

The DNC designated these "neglected" states to come first in the
presidential 2KillingTheHost_Cover_ruleprimaries. They were the ones
that Hillary won. Sanders won most of the swing states and those likely
to vote Democratic. That made him the party’s strongest nominee –
obliging the DNC to maneuver to sideline him. His criticism of big
donors and Citizens United threatens to dry up the source of funding not
only for Hillary but also for the DNC. They are going after the money –
whose chief providers are Wall Street, neoliberal corporatists and New
Cold War neocons.

Bernie’s campaign targeted Wall Street and corporate deregulation (the
essence of TTP and TTIP) as the key to the One Percent’s monopolization
of income and wealth since Obama’s post-2008 sacrifice of the economy on
the altar of rescuing banks and their bondholders. That is why the Wall
Street’s Donor Class that controls the Democratic Party machine want to
discourage new voter enrollment and turnout. The last thing they want is
an influx of new voters advocating real reform. Millennial newcomers are
more progressive, born into a generation that has no opportunity to
obtain jobs and housing as easily as their parents. So it’s best to keep
out independents in favor of the old-time voters with brand loyalty to
Democrats.

Demonizing Trump for saying what Bernie Sanders has been saying

Trump made his quip about Russia in what actually was an eloquent and
funny press conference.[1] The media took this out of context to depict
him as urging the Russians to hack into our e-mails. What he actually
said was that if Russia – or China, or somebody "sitting in his bed" –
did indeed read Hillary’s State Department and Clinton Foundation
dealings, they should do the world a favor and release them to reveal
her self-dealing.

Trump is right in saying that there has not really been a recovery for
the Rust Belt or for the 99 Percent. Hillary brazens it out by claiming
that Obama’s neoliberal economics have helped wage-earners, despite the
debt deflation blocking recovery. She promises to continue his policies
(backed by his same campaign funders).

That would seem to be a losing strategy for this year’s election –
unless the Democrats gain control of the electronic voting machines,
especially in Ohio. But the Republicans may decide to throw the election
to Hillary, who is fortunate to have Donald Trump as her opponent.
Demonized as Putin’s "Siberian candidate," he has become the Democrats’
unifying force: "Hillary isn’t Trump."

That’s what voting for the "lesser evil" means. Hillary’s message is:
"Even though we support TPP and a New Cold War, at least you’ll have a
woman at the helm. Anyway, you have nowhere else to go, because the
other side is even more evil!" Her logic is that (1) if you criticize
Hillary, you’re supporting Trump; (2) Trump is the Siberian candidate;
hence (3) Criticism of Hillary, NATO’s New Cold War escalation or the
TPP’s anti-labor treaty and financial deregulation is pro-Russian and
hence anti-American.

All that strategists for the One Percent need to do is fund an even
worse party platform to the right of the Democrats. So the choice will
be between Evil A (economic evil with ethnic and sexual tolerance) and
Evil B (without such tolerance).

It doesn’t have to be this way. But Sanders gave up, not feeling up to
the task. Having mocked him as a socialist, Hillary is acting as the Joe
McCarthy of the 2010s, mobilizing a wave of commie bashing against her
Republican opponent.

On Monday leading up to the convention, the Democratic Party’s cable
channel MSNBC kept juxtaposing pictures of Trump and Putin. Criticizing
Hillary’s neocon stance supporting Ukraine’s military coup is depicted
as support of Russia – while other commentators followed President Obama
claiming that criticism of TPP means making China the new leader of
Asia. The message is that criticizing NATO’s adventurism risks being
called a Soviet – I mean, Russian – puppet.

Bernie’s dilemma – and that of other would-be reformers of the
Democratic Party

Back in the 1950s and ‘60s I heard labor leaders ask whether there
really was nowhere to go except the Democratic Party. Most who joined
got co-opted. Instead of moving the Democratic Party to the left, its
leadership machine corrupted labor, and in due course the anti-war
movement and socialists who joined hoping to move it to the left.

What then is Bernie’s plan to save his followers from being forced to
make one compromise after another? The party machine demonizes policies
with which Hillary’s neocons disagree, and demand support of NATO
escalation and Obama’s (and Hillary’s and Kaine’s) underlying support of
the TPP on the pretense that this will help rather than hurt labor.
Hillary has denounced Bernie’s socialized medicine on the ground that it
is utopian (as if Canada and the eurozone are anti-capitalist utopias).

While Trump sent out tweets and gave interviews about how Hillary and
Debbie have screwed Bernie’s supporters, Sanders made no parallel
attempt to ask why progressive Democrats didn’t applaud Trump’s
assertions that he would wind down confrontation with Russia, that NATO
is obsolete and needs restructuring, and his opposition to the TPP.
Bernie didn’t seize the opportunity to mobilize non-partisan support for
their critique of neoliberal economic policies. He cast his lot with
Hillary, contradicting his claim during the primaries that she was not
qualified to be president.

After Sanders ended Monday evening’s opening by endorsing Hillary
Clinton, the MSNBC camera crew went down to talk to his supporters. They
eagerly asked the first one who she would vote for, after hearing
Bernie’s endorsement. "For Jill Stein," the lady said, explaining that
there was no way she would vote for Hillary.

The next interview produced a similar result. "I just don’t trust her,"
the Bernie supporter said. A third said the same thing. The MSNBC booth
tried to save face by assuring viewers that everyone they talked to had
said they were going to vote for Hillary. But it sounded hollow. I
suspect that viewers didn’t trust the TV media any more than they
trusted Hillary.

The problem facing Hillary’s rivals is that she has wrapped herself in
the legacy of President Obama. Having shied from criticizing the
president, Sanders and his supporters are facilitating what may be a
Lame Duck session sellout after the November election. My fear is that
Obama will try to "save his legacy" by joining with the Republicans to
drive through the TPP, and also may escalate the New Cold War with
Russia and China so as to make it easier for Hillary to sign onto these
moves.

Selecting Tim Kaine as her running mate means neoliberal, pro-TPP
business as usual. Hillary didn’t oppose TPP. She just said she would
put in rhetoric saying that its "purpose" was to raise wages – whereas
most voters have shown themselves to be smart enough to realize that the
effect will be just the opposite.

Yet Sanders endorsed her. Evidently he hopes to keep his position within
the Party chairing the Senate Minority Budget Committee, while
simultaneously trying to promote a revolution outside the Democrats. I
was reminded of a Chinese proverb: When there is a fork in the road, a
man who tries to take two roads at once gets a broken hip joint.

This straddle may have led Sanders to miss his big chance to make a
difference. He is trying to take two roads at once, continuing to run as
an Independent senator while caucusing with the Democrats without being
able to block TPP and new Wall Street giveaways and more favoritism to
the One Percent he has so eloquently denounced. Revolutions are a matter
of timing. As a former YPSL he might have recalled what happened when
Trotsky shied from breaking from Stalin after Lenin died early in 1924.
Soon it was too late, and all Stalin’s opponents were purged. The moment
was not seized.

Bernie has been an effective catalyst in this year’s election campaign.
But as in chemistry, a catalyst is not really part of the equation. It
merely helps the equation take place. Sanders didn’t say, "Thank god for
Wikileaks. It shows that I was right and the DNC needs radical reform."
He left it to his supporters to hold up anti-TPP signs. His new message
was "trust Hillary." But even so, she will not forgive him for being
against her before he was for her. He may still end up being
marginalized in 2017.

I had hoped that in addressing the convention, Sanders would have said
that its aim was not only to elect a president but congresspersons and
officials all down the line. He could have mentioned the people he is
supporting, starting with Wasserman Schultz’s opponent in Florida’s
House race (supported by Obama as well as Hillary).

Bernie’s supporters who walked out on Tuesday have been duly
radicalized. But he himself seems akin to be an American Alex Tsipras.
Tsipras thought withdrawal from the eurozone was even worse than
capitulating to austerity, while Sanders believes that withdrawing from
the Democrats and backing a political realignment – perhaps electing
Trump in the interim is even worse than Hillary’s pro-Wall street
Obama-like agenda.

Matters were not improved when Bill Clinton gave a hagiographic
biography of Hillary emphasizing her legal aid work to protect children,
without mentioning how the 1994 welfare "reform" drastically cut back
aid to dependent children. Madeline Albright said that Hillary would
keep America safe, without mentioning Hillary’s promotion of
destabilizing Libya and backing Al Quaeda against Syria’s government,
driving millions of refugees to Europe and wherever they might be safer.

The many anti-TPP signs waved by Sanders delegates on Wednesday saw
Hillary say that she would oppose TPP "as currently written." This
suggests that a modest sop thrown to labor – a rhetorical paste-on
saying that the TPP’s aim was to raise living standards. This simply
showed once again her sophist trickery at lawyering, giving her an out
that she and long-time TPP supporter Tim Kaine were sure to take.

Obama’s brilliant demagogy left many eyes glazed over in admiration.
Nobody is better at false sincerity while misrepresenting reality so
shamelessly. Probably few caught the threatening hint he dropped about
Hillary’s plan for corporations to share their profits with their
workers. This sounds to me like the Pinochet plan to privatize Social
Security by turning it into exploitative ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership
Programs). The idea is that wage withholding would be steered to buy
into the company’s stock – bidding it up in the process. Employees then
would end up holding an empty bag, as occurred recently with the Chicago
Tribune. That seems to be the great "reform" to "save" Social Security
that her Wall Street patrons are thinking up.

One might think that the Democrats would see the Obama administration as
an albatross around their neck, much as Gore had Bill Clinton around his
neck in 2000. Gore didn’t want him showing his face in the campaign. Yet
Hillary presents herself as continuing the Obama policies with "business
as usual," as if she will act as his third term.

Voters know that Obama bailed out the banks, not the economy, and that
Hillary’s campaign backers are on Wall Street. So this year would seem
to have been a propitious time to start a real alternative. Hillary is
mistrusted, and that mistrust is spreading to the Democratic Party
machine – especially as the Koch Brothers and kindred backers of failed
Republican candidates find neoliberal religion with Hillary. A third
party Green/Socialist run might indeed have taken off – with Sanders
stealing Trump’s thunder by pre-empting his critique of TPP, free trade
and NATO, adding Wall Street and Citizens United campaign financing.

This fall’s presidential debates

Hillary and even Bernie assured the Democratic convention again and
again how much President Obama has revived the economy from the "mess"
that Bush left. While Trump centers his disdain on the TPP (much as he
knocked Jeb Bush out by saying that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake),
he can reply, "What recovery? Have you voters really recovered from 2008?"

Hillary and other speechmakers at the Democratic convention criticized
Trump for saying that "things are bad." But according to the July 13
NBC/WSJ poll, 73% of voters believe that the country is going "off on
the wrong track." If Trump shifts his epithet from simply "Crooked
Hillary" to the more nuanced "Crooked Wall Street and their candidate,
Crooked Hillary," he’ll score a ratings spurt.

Debt deflation and shrinking markets over the next two years do not
provide much hope for increasing the minimum wage – which wouldn’t help
much if one can’t find a job in the first place! By 2018 the continued
stagnation of the 99 Percent may lead to a midterm wipeout of Democrats
(assuming that Hillary wins this year against Trump), catalyzing an
alternative party (assuming that she does not blow up the world in her
neocon military escalation on the borders of Russia and China).

The problem with Trump is not mistrust; it is that nobody knows what
policies he will back. The media are giving him the same silent
treatment they did with Bernie, while accusing him of being in Putin’s
pocket. He did admit selling some real estate to Russian nationals.
Perhaps some of these gains fueled his presidential campaign …

The solution is not to save the Democratic Party, but to replace it. The
debate reminds me of that about the Soviet Union in the 1950s: Is it a
degenerated workers’ state, or a Stalinist bureaucratic mutation going
the opposite direction from real socialism?

I wonder how many years it will take for Hillary to end up booed so
loudly that she has to leave hotels and other speaking venues via their
back alleys, much as Lyndon Johnson had to sneak out to avoid the
anti-war booers leading up to the 1968 election.

Notes.

[1] Available on https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HGHWou0h1kk). This should
be seen as an antidote to most media coverage. For a run-down on
Russia-Trump accusations see Lambert Strether, "Hoisted from Comments:
Can We Even Know Who Hacked the DNC Emails?" Naked Capitalism, July 28,
2016.

(9) Michael Hudson on Hillary's Foundation: she mixes diplomacy &
fund-raising
http://michael-hudson.com/2016/07/the-clinton-foundation/

  The Clinton Foundation?

By Michael Sunday, July 10, 2016

Clinton email and Foundation TRNN July 8 2016.

"Is the Real Scandal the Clinton Foundation?," TRNN, July 8, 2016.

Michael Hudson says the media has failed to look beyond the emails and
into potential conflicts of interest during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as
Secretary of State.

PAUL JAY, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay. ...

MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be back here, Paul.

JAY: [...] But it seems to me that the deliberate, willful decision to
use a private server–and some people have said one of the reasons could
be to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests–and I don’t know if that
rises to the level of criminality. But it’s sure wrong.

HUDSON: Well, it’s obvious that Hillary wanted to keep some information
from the public finding out. The information that she wanted to keep
from the public probably didn’t concern national security so much as her
own private dealings. Nobody, I think, in American history has merged
their public service as secretary of state or president with their
private gains to the extent that Hillary really has. And by that I mean
the Clinton Foundation, overall.

Here’s the problem, you can imagine. She’s going to Saudi Arabia, she’s
going to Europe, she’s going to the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia
has asked her–and this is all very public–we want more arms. We want to
buy arms in America. We know that Saudi Arabia is one of the major
contributors to the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, Hillary’s in
a position to go to Raytheon, to Boeing, and say look, do I have a
customer for you. Saudi Arabia would love to buy your arms. Maybe we can
arrange something. I’m going to do my best. By the way, you know, my
foundation is–you know, I’m a public-spirited person and I’m trying to
help the world. Would you like to make a contribution to my foundation?

Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex is one of the big
contributors to the Clinton Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of
the parties who are directly affected by her decisions. Now, my guess is
what she didn’t want people to find out, whether on Freedom of
Information Act or others, are the lobbying she’s doing for her own
foundation, which in a way means her wealth, her husband’s wealth, Bill
Clinton’s wealth, and the power that both of them have by getting a
quarter billion dollars of grants into the foundation during her
secretary of state.

JAY: As far as we know, there’s no direct evidence that she did
precisely what you’re saying. And

That they actually say–"Give money to the foundation; I will facilitate
such-and-such a contract." There’s no evidence of that, correct?

HUDSON: That’s right. And partly there’s no evidence because her private
emails are not subject to [inaud.]. They’re not subject to finding out
this. We don’t have any evidence one way or the other. So certainly
there is no evidence. There is only the appearance of what looks to me
to be an inherent conflict of interest with the foundation.

JAY: And there’s no direct evidence that any abnormal amount of money
has gone to Bill Clinton, in terms of fees and expenses. One can assume
he’s well-compensated. But it does have charitable status, it has to
file a 990. They are under charitable law regulations, and so far I
don’t know of any reporting that says that they have violated the–.

HUDSON: You’re right. The advantage of being under charitable law is
it’s in a foundation that–you can look at it in effect as your savings
account. And you can treat it–you can do with a foundation whatever you
want.

Now, if you or I had a quarter billion dollars, what we’d want to do is
influence policy. Influence the world. Well, that’s what they want to
do. They want to use the foundation to support policies that they want.
And here we’re not dealing with unexplained enrichment. This isn’t money
that comes into them that goes into an offshore account in Switzerland
or the Cayman Islands. It’s hidden in plain sight. It’s all the
foundation. It’s tax-exempt. It’s legitimate. So she’s somehow been able
to legitimize a conflict of interest, and what that used to be called
corruption in office. Or at least the appearance of what could be
corruption in office.

And the fact is, that is what there has been a blacked-out screen
painted over it, and we don’t have any idea what she’s been saying to
these affected parties that not only has she been dealing with, the
secretary of state, but it turned out to be major contributors to her
and Bill’s foundation.

JAY: Now, the reason the emails rose to such prominence is because it
was the potential of criminal charges. That seems to have ended now. The
Clinton foundation certainly has been reported upon in various places in
the mainstream press. It never rose to the same level of attention as
the emails. But why do you think that is? Because you think there’s
enough fodder there that that could have been quite a media fest. Feast,
I should say.

HUDSON: Well, there’s no direct link between the foundation that says
it’s existing to promote various social purposes, and Hillary’s actions
as secretary of state. But there’s such overlap there. I can’t think of
any public official at cabinet level or above, in memory who’s ever had
an overlapping between a foundation that they had and had control,
personally, and their public job. So there’s never been so great a
blurring of categories.

JAY: So why isn’t this a bigger issue in the media? Corporate media?

HUDSON: I don’t – I think the media are supporting Hillary. And that’s a
good question. Why are they supporting her so much with all of this? Why
aren’t they raising this seemingly obvious thing? I think the media want
two things that Hillary wants. They want the trade agreements to
essentially turn over policy to, trade policy to corporations, and
regulatory policy to–.

JAY: You’re talking about TTIP and [TTP].

HUDSON: [They’re neocons.] They’re the agreement of politics. If the
media agree with her politics and says, okay, we want to back her
because she’s backing the kind of world we want, a neocon world, a
neoliberal world, then they’re going to say, this is wonderful. We can
now distract attention onto did she leak a national secret. Well, the
secrets that are really important aren’t the national classification
secrets. They’re the personal, personal, the big-picture secrets. And
it’s the big picture we don’t have a clue of as a result of all of these
erasures.

JAY: Okay, thanks very much for joining us, Michael.

HUDSON: Good to be here.

JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.

(10) IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-27/irs-launches-investigation-clinton-foundation

by Tyler Durden

Jul 27, 2016 5:31 PM

Submitted by Richard Pollock via The Daily Caller,

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen referred congressional charges of corrupt
Clinton Foundation "pay-to-play" activities to his tax agency’s exempt
operations office for investigation, The Daily Caller News Foundation
has learned.

The request to investigate the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
Foundation on charges of "public corruption" was made in a July 15
letter by 64 House Republicans to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade
Commission (FTC). They charged the foundation is "lawless."

The initiative is being led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee
Republican who serves as the vice chairwoman of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, which oversees FTC. The FTC regulates public
charities alongside the IRS.

The lawmakers charged the Clinton Foundation is a "lawless ‘pay-to-play’
enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for
years and should be investigated."

Koskinen’s July 22 reply came only a week after the House Republicans
contacted the tax agency. It arrived to their offices Monday, the first
opening day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

"We have forwarded the information you have submitted to our Exempt
Organizations Program in Dallas," Koskinen told the Republicans.

The Exempt Organization Program is the division of the IRS that
regulates the operations of public foundations and charities. It’s the
same division that was led by former IRS official Lois Lerner when
hundreds of conservative, evangelical and tea party non-profit
applicants were illegally targeted and harassed by tax officials.

Blackburn told TheDCNF she believes the IRS has a double standard
because, "they would go after conservative groups and religious groups
and organizations, but they wouldn’t be looking at the Clinton
Foundation for years. It was as if they choose who they are going to
audit and question. It’s not right."

Blackburn said she and her colleagues will "continue to push" for
answers on the Clinton Foundation’s governing policies, including its
insular board of directors. She said they also will examine conflicts of
interest and "follow the money trail."

"In my opinion, there’s a lack of good governance, there is the
appearance of conflicts of interest, and there are continued questions
about the financial dealings," she told TheDCNF.

House Republicans singled out Laureate Education and Uranium One as two
companies that seemed to have paid lavish sums to the Clintons and later
received official government benefits.

Laureate hired former President Bill Clinton as "honorary chancellor,"
paying him $16.5 million over five years. The Baltimore-based company,
which operates for-profit universities in 28 countries, also donated
between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according
to the foundation’s web site.

While Bill was collecting a paycheck from the company and his wife was
secretary of state, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), an arm
of the World Bank, invested $150 million in Laureate. It was the
largest-ever single IFC investment to an educational company. The United
States government is the largest contributor to the IFC. During that
same period, the Department of State’s U.S. Agency for International
Development awarded $55 million to the International Youth Foundation.
Laureate CEO Douglas Becker is on the foundation’s board of directors.
International Youth Foundation, the Clinton Foundation and Laureate
jointly participated in foundation programs.

A Laureate spokesman denied the quid pro quo charges: "Allegations of
any quid pro quo between Laureate, the International Youth Foundation
and the Clintons are completely false," she told TheDCNF, adding, "the
IFC’s decision to invest in Laureate had no connection to and was not
influenced in any way whatsoever by Hillary Clinton."

The IFC also awarded $150 million to another company owned by Frank
Giustra, a close friend of Bill Clinton. Giustra donated $100 million to
create the "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership" within the Clinton
Foundation. The funds went to Pacific Infrastructure, a company in which
Giustra had a significant financial stake. The company was to build a
port and oil pipeline in Colombia that was strenuously opposed by
environmental and human rights groups because the pipeline sliced
through five indigenous villages and forcibly displaced the tribes.

Giustra also was an owner in Uranium One, a uranium mining company with
operations in Kazakhstan and in the western United States. Giustra
wanted to sell a share of the uranium business to Russia’s atomic energy
agency, which required U.S. approval, including that of Secretary
Clinton. The Russian investment was approved.

Blackburn added that it appeared the Clinton Foundation — which was
tax-exempt only to construct and manage Clinton’s presidential library —
never got IRS approval to become a tax-exempt global organization with
operations in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean.

"In the Clinton Foundation we have a charity that has never filed the
appropriate paperwork," Blackburn charged.

Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who has been investigating the
Clinton Foundation, told TheDCNF that the expansion of the foundation
into a global giant was not legally approved by the IRS.

"It’s crystal clear in a review of their application that their purposes
were narrowly limited, as they should have been, to a presidential
archive in Little Rock, Arkansas," he said to TheDCNF. "End of discussion."

Blackburn also questions the makeup of the Clinton Foundation’s board of
directors, which IRS rules require include independent, arm’s-length
board members. The Clinton Foundation board mainly consists of close
friends, business colleagues and big donors to the Clintons, as reported
by TheDCNF.

"All charities need to guard against incestuous relationships which
limit their ability to be objective," the congresswoman said. "In the
Clinton Foundation, we see a lack of diversity within their board."

Uranium One did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment. The
Clinton Foundation also did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.