May comments from Chelsea Clinton on wealth generate fresh scrutiny

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
The Clintons

The Clintons

Her mother can’t seem to answer questions about the family wealth without tripping up and apparently neither can Chelsea. Via the New York Daily News (hat tip):

Hillary Clinton insists she isn’t “well-off” and now daughter Chelsea, according to a recent interview, claims she couldn’t care less about money.

“I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,” she told Fast Company in an interview that ran in the magazine’s May editionexplaining why she gave up lucrative gigs to join her family’s philanthropic foundation.

Comparing her experience to the average millennial, the 34-year-old former first daughter defended jumping around to different careers — from consulting to a hedge fund to academia to journalism — before finding her true calling working with her parents.

[…]

The Clinton name likely opened doors for the political heiress, including an eye-popping $600,000 annual salary for an irregular stint as an NBC special correspondent, but Chelsea insists her work speaks for itself.

“I will just always work harder (than anybody else) and hopefully perform better,” said Clinton, who along with former banker husband Marc Mezvinsky, purchased a $10.5-million Gramercy Park apartment in 2013. “And hopefully, over time, I preempt and erase whatever expectations people have of me not having a good work ethic, or not being smart, or not being motivated.”

NRO’s Jonah Goldberg reacts:

But she’s not a “boomerang kid.” She’s not living in her parents’ basement (in any of their homes). She’s living in a 10.5-million-dollar apartment in Gramercy Park with her ex-banker husband. In other words, she doesn’t care about money because she has all the money she could ever want or need. That’s not her fault, nor is it something people should begrudge her. She seems to be aiming for a more productive life than a lot of kids raised in unimaginable privilege and wealth. Good for her.

But it does cast a pretty harsh light on her mother’s repeated and awkward claims to be in touch with the needs of those who are economically struggling. Hillary Clinton isn’t worried about the problems facing parents of most Millennials. And that’s fine. It would be odd if the former first lady of the United States had such problems. What’s problematic is Hillary’s inability to own up to this obvious fact and talk about it in a sincere or convincing way.

I’m of a similar mindset. Again, as I’ve stated repeatedly – I don’t care that the Clintons make money and are well-off.  But the attempts at coming off being “just like common folk who struggle” really don’t hold water, and the Clinton women (Bill, as far as I know, hasn’t yet flubbed on this subject in interviews) need to stick to topics that don’t make them look like pandering, self-centered, out of touch hypocrites.   Just my .02 …

Hillary gets tripped up again when asked questions about her wealth

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Bill and Hillary Clinton

All about image.

Via Post Politics:

Hillary Rodham Clinton defended scrutiny on her and her husband’s personal wealth by contrasting herself in an interview published Sunday with other multimillionaires who are “truly well off.”

The comment immediately drew scorn from Republicans, who have highlighted a series of stumbles the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate has made on her book tour this month when talking about her personal fortune and six-figure speaking fees.

In an interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Clinton was asked whether she could be a credible champion for fighting income inequality in the United States despite her wealth.

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she told the paper, “because we 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.” The Guardian wrote that Clinton let off “another burst of laughter” in answering the question, suggesting that she found the question “painful.”

Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have earned well over $100 million giving paid speeches and writing books since leaving the White House in 2001.

[…]

Still, mentioning that she pays taxes as a defense of her wealth is striking considering that Bloomberg News reported last week that the Clintons use “financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth” to shield some of their wealth from standard estate taxes.

Hillary Clinton’s speaking fee is $200,000 or more – and although the advance for her latest book, “Hard Choices,” has not been released, she received an $8 million advance for her first memoir, “Living History.”

Like I wrote in my previous post on this issue, I have no quarrel with the Clintons making a lot of money.  And wanting to keep as much of it as possible. I do, however, take offense to her acting like she’s not “truly well off”, saying one thing and doing something different when it comes to their taxes, and suggesting that in the past – after their time in the White House – that she and the former President were “dead broke” when she knows good and danged well they weren’t.  

This is a lame attempt by her as trying to come off as just an ordinary “woman of the people”, and she’s failing miserably.  She should be relieved that this is happening so early on before the 2016 campaign really gets ramped up, because most people are likely to forget what she said.  That is, unless the Republican contenders for President see fit to remind the American people again (hint hint) ….

Member of Team Clinton bans conservative news outlet from U of Ark archives

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Bill and Hillary Clinton

All about image.

Disturbing:

A Hillary Clinton donor who serves as dean of the University of Arkansas libraries has banned the Washington Free Beacon from the school’s special collections archives, after the news outlet published revealing stories about Hillary Clinton based on documents available at the university library.

The ban came days after the Free Beacon ran a story about Clinton’s 1975 defense of a child rapist that drew from audio recordings available at the University of Arkansas library’s special collections archives.

However, the ban was not mentioned in a June 16 email to this reporter from Steve Voorhies, manager of media relations at the university.

“Congratulations on another fine mining expedition into the University of Arkansas Libraries archives,” Voorhies wrote.

“I appreciate you raising the profile of the University of Arkansas Libraries special collections,” Voorhies concluded his email, while asking for advanced notice prior to future stories.

“I expect there is more you will find in coming months,” he said.

Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen informed editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti in a June 17 letter that the library had “officially suspended” the Free Beacon‘s research privileges.

That’s not even the half of it. Make sure to read the whole thing. The lengths the Clinton Protection Racket will go through to try to protect Bill and Hillary – especially Hillary, at this point, boggles the mind. Deeply disturbing. What else are they trying to hide?  You can bet this won’t be the last time the Beacon shines a light on them.

And to their credit, the Free Beacon isn’t backing down – as can be seen from their front page which has several huge Clinton stories  “above the fold” this morning.  Their response to Allen can be read here. Bravo.

(Video) #Benghazi — why it matters

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Aside from owing a true accounting to the memories of the dead lost there and their survivors, the truth about the Benghazi massacre matters because of two words: “competence” and “character.”  Bill Whittle explains:

Remember, one of the two top American officials mentioned in the video plainly desires to be President of the United States. Ignore the faux-outrage of her supporters; questions about Hillary Clinton’s conduct, competence, and character before, during, and after the attack are absolutely appropriate.

And the answers should disqualify her from office.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

It begins: The words you ‘can & can’t’ use when discussing Hillary Clinton

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Just as the case was in 2008, a growing list of Words/Things You Can’t Say When Discussing Hillary Clinton is emerging in time for her ongoing preparations for her to make the official announcement about her second run for the presidency. Good job getting the documentation rolling, Ashe Schow:

Oh dear, someone called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “feisty” and now ThinkProgress is out crying sexism.

CNN host Christiane Amanpour – a woman, if you didn’t know – said that Clinton “got quite feisty” during her interview Tuesday with Diane Sawyer – another woman (just making that absolutely clear). Wolf Blitzer – who is not a woman – agreed, and also said the word “feisty.”

This sent ThinkProgress into a tizzy (wait, is that sexist?) and allowed the liberal website to bring up a 2012 “guide” from the Women’s Media Center that details more than 100 words and phrases that are apparently sexist.

Feisty is one of them. How is feisty sexist? Well, the WMC claims the word is “normally reserved for individuals and animals that are not inherently potent or powerful.”

[…]

Other words that are apparently sexist include “aggressive,” “brunette,” “childcare” and “complain.” Even “politically correct” is apparently no longer politically correct.

And don’t forget, we’re also not supposed to talk about La Clinton’s fashion choices or hairdos … unless the purpose is to praise all of the above in the spirit of how her “look” gives off the appearance of power (for example: wearing “power red”).  From a piece I wrote in 2007 on the “controversy” surrounding a fashion column the WaPo published about Mrs. Clinton showing some, er, cleavage on the floor of the US Senate:

As a woman, and knowing many women, I can tell you from first hand experience that when professional women dress, nine times out of ten they’re dressing to impress, I don’t care where they’re working. They also expect to get noticed for how ‘sharp’ and/or ‘stylish’ they’re dressed and, shocker of all shockers, they actually like to receive compliments for what they wear. Now I can guarantee you that if Givhan’s column had been more flattering about the way Hillary dresses, i.e., if she was wearing red, how the color and style she was wearing was a symbol for power, or if it was along the lines of “Hillary is showing some cleavage and leg in a Congress that traditionally shies away from overt displays of skin. You go girl! Break down those walls!” the reactions to that column would have been totally different – especially amongst the liberal women responding to what was written. The fact that it wasn’t a very flattering piece on Hillary’s attire and what it displayed was where Givhan erred – not that she wrote about cleavage per se.

In any event, feel free to add to the list of things you can and can’t say when discussing She Who Wants to be President  in the comments! Can’t wait. #popcorn

Surprise: Bill & Hillary Clinton are hypocrites on the estate tax

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Bill and Hillary Clinton

Masters of deception.

Bloomberg has an intriguing report detailing just exactly how hypocritical the Clintons are on the issue of the estate tax (hat tip):

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 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.”

The Clintons’ finances are receiving attention as Hillary Clinton tours the country promoting her book, “Hard Choices.” She said in an interview on ABC television that the couple was “dead broke” and in debt when they left the White House in early 2001. After being criticized for her comments, she told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she understood the financial struggles of Americans.

Look,  I have no issue with people who want to keep more of their own money – whether they keep it themselves or try to keep it in the family. I do, however, have an issue with those who advocate one set of rules for some people while they do just the opposite, something the Clintons – Bill and Hillary both – are infamous for.

Make sure to read the full article – and take note of the journalist who wrote it, Richard Rubin, who is soon to be added to the Clinton “Enemies List” in advance of her likely decision to run for President … if he hasn’t been already.

#Benghazi attackers used State Dept. phones the night of the attack

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

And we overheard them doing it. If anyone still believes Hillary’s story about blaming a YouTube video based on the best information they had at the time, that person is either dumber than a rock, or hoping for a job in a possible Hillary administration.

Via Bret Baier and James Rosen:

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.

The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.

Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.

In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

Funny, but the Accountability Review Board Secretary Clinton set up after the Benghazi massacre never interviewed Mr Stahl, nor, as far as I know, anyone else who might have knowledge of this. Odd oversight for them to make, isn’t it?

Remember, late on the night of the attack, right after a phone call with the president, Clinton released a statement blaming a video for the attack. She then swore before the caskets of the honored dead returning from Benghazi –and to the faces of their family members– that she would see that video maker brought to justice. She and her boss, the President of the United States, later still made a commercial for Pakistani TV denouncing the video. To this day, in her recently release memoirs, Hillary Clinton defends that claim as being based on the best intelligence we had available at the time.

And yet, if this story is true, we now know we had overheard the enemy calling their leaders and reporting a successful operation. Not a demonstration that got out of control, but an attack.

And, again, they knew that night.

This isn’t the first time we’ve had evidence that State and the White House knew that evening what was really happening, but this is explosive and, if it holds up, should destroy any remnant of Lady MacBeth’s credibility.

As I’ve said before, the only intended target for this deception could have been us. Not the enemy. In addition to getting the truth for its own sake, we the voters need to ask ourselves a question: Do we really want as president someone who not only and so casually lies to us, but to bereaved families?

I can’t wait for these hearings to get started.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Caption This: Hillary Clinton & Rahm Emanuel embrace in Chicago

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rahm Emanuel

Former Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton embraces Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel during an appearance to promote her new book, Weds., June 11, 2014, in Chicago.(AP Photo/Stacy Thacker)

The story – via the Politico:

Two decades ago, Rahm Emanuel was an accomplished and ambitious Clinton White House aide, whose cocksure style outpaced his judgment and maturity. Hillary Clinton, leery of that persona, tried to have him fired early on.

But on Wednesday, the two took the stage together for an interview, led by Emanuel, as Clinton embarks on the second leg of her promotional tour for her new book, “Hard Choices,” which is widely seen as a kickoff to another presidential campaign.

Emanuel, now Chicago’s mayor, gave Clinton a big hug at the outset. Despite reports that he had mused to some Washington Democrats last year about running for president in 2016 if Clinton took a pass, he’s endorsed her potential candidacy through the super PAC “Ready for Hillary.”

Before they settled into their seats, Clinton told the crowd that she goes “back a long way with the mayor,” and nodded to his reputation as an aggressive, energetic operator: “If ever there’s a blackout in Chicago, have Rahm hold some kind of cable and it would start to electrify again.”

[…]

Yet any tensions between the two are clearly in the past; there were genuine signs of warmth between them on Wednesday. Emanuel noted they were sitting on the stage of a ballet company, but said that it had never been “graced” so well as it was with Clinton.

Sounds like the sugar was so sweet on this leg of her book promo tour that you couldn’t even cut it with a knife. And speaking of knives, anyone doubt Rahmbo is angling for another turn as a “senior” adviser to another Clinton in the White House?  My stomach suddenly feels queasy …

QOTD: “We were dead broke” after leaving the White House, says Hillary

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
The Clintons

The Clintons

Yeah – so, like, this was said (hat tip):

Hillary Clinton defended the millions of dollars she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have earned giving paid speeches since leaving public office in an exclusive interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer ahead of Tuesday’s release of her new memoir, “Hard Choices.”

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton told Sawyer, referring to the hefty legal fees incurred during their White House years. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

She added, “Bill has worked really hard — and it’s been amazing to me — he’s worked very hard. First of all, we had to pay off all our debts, which was, you know, he had to make double the money because of obviously taxes and then pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.”

[…]

Hillary Clinton’s individual speaking fees reportedly average $200,000 per appearance.

“Let me put it this way,” Clinton told Sawyer. “I thought making speeches for money was a much better thing than getting connected with any one group or company as so many people who leave public life do.”

Look, I could care less if she and Bill get paid tidy sums of money for speaking engagements and the like.  Prominent public figures do it all the time. It’s how some make their livings.  But the key words above are houseS, mortgageS.  If you’re really that broke, GET RID of some of the excess like we common folk do and quit whining about the fact that you’re not making enough millions to pay for it all.

Sheesh.

Flashback: 3/5/08 – Michelle Obama talks about “the struggle” to pay off student loans while living in upscale Chicago

New poll finds that Bush is seen as more competent than Obama

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

obama-clinton-bush

This should start your weekend off on the right note. ;) Via the Washington Post:

A majority of voters say the Obama administration is less competent than Bill Clinton’s and a plurality say it is less competent than George W. Bush’s according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-eight percent say the Obama administration is less competent that the Clinton administration. Forty-eight percent say it is less competent than Bush’s, compared to 42 percent who say it is more competent. Seven percent judge Obama’s and Bush’s the same.

Fifty-five percent say that the Obama administration has made the country weaker; 35 percent say his administration has made it stronger.

You have to laugh at this. Liberals will laugh for different reasons – because it’s a Fox poll and therefore will be deemed by them as “not credible”, but they’re in denial about how most Americans view this administration anyway – regardless of comparisons of President Obama to George W. Bush.

Granted, time softens many people on their opinions of the legacies of most former Presidents, and I’m sure some of that is at play here.  But think about the considerable amount of time that the Obama administration spends blaming President Bush for the current ills our country faces – and his inability to “fix” them all, and consider the terrible week Team Obama has had all around over the controversy surrounding the “prisoner swap” of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five high level Taliban terrorists at Gitmo. And then imagine their reaction to this poll. LOL.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall. :))