Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Elections 2016’

Clinton Campaign Chairman Had Multiple Dinners With Top DOJ Official During Clinton Email Investigation


waving flagAuthored by Chuck Ross, Reporter / 10/25/2016

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/25/clinton-campaign-chairman-had-multiple-dinners-with-top-doj-official-during-clinton-email-investigation/

klinton-kane-korruption-clinton-book-corrupt-together-427x600-copyThe day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, the Democrat’s campaign chairman, met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, a top official at the Justice Department.

The dinner arrangement, revealed in hacked Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.

Podesta and Kadzik, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, were in frequent contact, other emails show. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures.

The exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department, one former U.S. Attorney tells The Daily Caller.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Kadzik, who started at the DOJ in 2013, helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

In the trenches

Podesta and Kadzik have a long history — one which has largely gone unnoticed during the ongoing Clinton email scandal.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office.

That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account.

In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign.

Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-11-57-45-amIt is unclear to which case Podesta was referring and whether he was joking about prison. But Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal.

As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky.

In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time.

“He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe.

Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.

Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon.picture1

To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001.

A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.” The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon.

On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

WikiLeaks revelations

The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the WikiLeaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant.

The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just a day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.

Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. And in an email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

Kadzik’s help for Clinton during email probe

As head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.REALLY

But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.

In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”Leftist Propagandist

DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.” Kadzik does not appear to have responded to DeSantis’ questions.how-did-that-work-out-for-you

  • Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton.
  • Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.
  • Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the record for this article.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Company Led By Major Clinton Donor Is Named Biggest Corporate Tax Avoider


waving flagAuthored by Chuck Ross, Reporter / 10/05/2016

URL of the original posting site:  http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/company-led-by-major-clinton-donor-is-named-biggest-corporate-tax-avoider/#ixzz4MFgnCPXX

doners

Apple Inc., whose CEO Tim Cook is a major Hillary Clinton supporter and donor, has been named the biggest U.S. corporate tax avoider by a group that monitors the issue.

The tech giant avoided paying $65 billion in U.S. taxes on $215 billion its offshore subsidiaries took in last year, according to a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), a progressive Washington D.C. think tank.

The study found that Fortune 500 companies avoided paying $716 billion in U.S. taxes on $2.4 trillion in offshore profits booked last year. Corporations’ use of so-called tax inversions has become a presidential campaign issue, with Clinton criticizing companies that set up offshore subsidiaries in order to lower their federal income tax payments.

“Congress should act immediately to prevent corporations from engaging in inversions, where businesses move their corporate residence abroad on paper in order to escape paying their fair share of taxes,” reads a post on Clinton’s campaign website laying out her corporate tax policy.REALLY

“These corporations benefit from access to the most talented workforce in the world, billions of dollars in public investment in basic research, and the robust American legal system, yet trade in their U.S. identity to avoid paying their fair share,” it continues, adding that “inversions put smaller American businesses at a disadvantage.”Leftist Propagandist

But Clinton has avoided mentioning Apple in her critique.of-course-she-did

That could be because Cook is a major backer of Clinton’s campaign and her family charity, the Clinton Foundation. In August he hosted a $50,000-a-ticket fundraiser for the former secretary of state at his home in the San Francisco area. A co-host of the function was Apple executive Lisa Jackson, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency who was embroiled in a scandal involving her use of a pseudonymous email account while in office.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Jackson also sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation. Cook, who has donated between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, has said that he met Bill Clinton through the non-profit.

Apple has avoided a hefty U.S. tax bill by utilizing three subsidiaries it set up in Ireland. According to CTJ, the tech giant pays only 4.6 percent of its offshore profits in taxes. One of the subsidiaries is Apple Operations Inc. The iPhone maker has invested its intellectual property rights through the subsidiary, The Los Angeles Times explained earlier this year. Intellectual property constitutes 30 percent of Apple’s net profit, the company has claimed.

“A 2013 Senate investigation found that Apple has structured two Irish subsidiaries to be tax residents of neither the United States, where they are managed and controlled, nor Ireland, where they are incorporated,” CTJ notes in its report.Oh good

The report also points to a recent ruling handed down by the European Commission, which found that Apple paid only 0.005 percent of its European profits in taxes in 2014. The commission ordered the company to pay Ireland $14.5 billion it owes in back taxes.picture3

Cook has denied allegations that Apple avoids paying U.S. taxes. He called the suggestion “total political crap” during a “60 Minutes” interview last year. But he seemed to undercut his own claim in the interview. While saying that “Apple pays every tax dollar we owe,” he added that he didn’t think it would be “reasonable” to re-patriate profits earned overseas to the U.S. Doing so would mean that Apple would have to pay nearly 40 percent of those profits in taxes to the IRS.Leftist Propagandist

In addition to fundraising for Clinton’s presidential bid, Cook has a personal relationship with Bill Clinton, he has said.

In August, Cook told The Washington Post that he sought out Bill Clinton’s advice in 2013, just before he was set to testify in front of the U.S. Senate regarding corporate tax policy.

“For the hearing [before the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations about Apple’s tax practices in 2013], I’ve never testified in front of Congress before. So I called up [Goldman Sachs CEO] Lloyd Blankfein, because I looked back to say who’s done this before? I knew Lloyd and thought he’d be honest with me. I called up President Clinton,” Cook told the newspaper.

“He knows a lot about the politics,” he said of Clinton. “I’d not met him through a political connection. I’d met him through the foundation.”REALLY

Follow Chuck on Twitter

Months After Nasty Primary Fight, Ted Cruz Endorses Donald Trump


waving flagAuthored by Alex Pappas, Political Reporter, 09/23/2016

Months after their nasty GOP primary fight, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Friday officially announced that he will vote Donald Trump for president.

“After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on election day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump,” Cruz wrote on Facebook on Friday afternoon.

Trump reacted to the news in a statement, saying: “I am greatly honored by the endorsement of Senator Cruz. We have fought the battle and he was a tough and brilliant opponent. I look forward to working with him for many years to come in order to make America great again.”

Cruz, who it is believed would like to run for president again, was booed in July during the Republican National Convention when he declined to endorse Trump. Instead, he told delegates to “vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

The contest between Cruz and Trump got particularly nasty towards the end: Trump routinely referred to his rival as “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz famously referred to Trump as a “sniveling coward.”

In a lengthy post explaining his decision, Cruz said that “like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.”

“I’ve made this decision for two reasons,” Cruz wrote. “First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word. Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.”

He added: “A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.” 

The Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, an organization that backed Cruz over Trump in the primary but endorsed Trump this week, said it “commends” Cruz for “listening to the grassroots activists and Republican voters who nominated Donald Trump in order to shake up the Washington Establishment and its stranglehold over our politics.”

“It is clear Ted Cruz has examined his principles, considered the choice at hand and has decided to lead by example in endorsing Donald Trump as the man who will repeal Obamacare, balance our budget, and ensure the Supreme Court protects our most cherished rights over Hillary Clinton, who will represent another four years of the failed Obama Administration,” said the group’s chairwoman, Jenny Beth Martin.

96 Percent Of Hillary’s Charitable Donations In 2015 Went To Clinton Foundation


waving flagAuthored by Photo of Chuck Ross Chuck Ross, Reporter / 08/12/2016

Vote In One and you get them allHillary Clinton and her husband Bill deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year — $1 million of which went to their own family non-profit, the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton released her tax forms on Friday in a move that is seen as a way to pressure Donald Trump to release his taxes. The GOP nominee has refused to release the records, saying that he is under a routine audit.

The documents show that the power couple earned $10,745,378 last year, mostly on income earned from giving public speeches. Of that, they gave just over a million to charity. But the contributions can hardly be seen as altruistic, since the money flowed back to an entity they control.

The other $42,000 contribution was to Desert Classic Charities. That group hosts an annual PGA golf event. Doug Band, a Clinton Foundation adviser and Bill Clinton’s longtime assistant, was on the board of directors of that organization through 2014, according to its IRS filings.

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-12 at 11.08.47 AMDesert Classic Charities effectively returned that donation back into the Clinton orbit. Its 2015 tax filing shows that it contributed $700,000 to the Clinton Foundation for work on obesity programs. The group handed out $1.6 million in grants that whole year.

The Clintons’ effective federal tax rate was 34.2 percent, the Clinton campaign said in a press release. With state and local taxes amounting to nine percent of their income, they paid just over 43 percent of their income in taxes.

It remains to be seen if Clinton will face the same scrutiny for her in-house contributions as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did when he ran on the GOP ticket in 2012.

> Romney paid $1.9 million in taxes and gave $4 million in charity on income of $14 million. But many liberal commentators criticized the Republican because a majority of those charitable contributions went to the Mormon church. Another chunk went to a foundation controlled by his family.

> The Nation, a far-left magazine, published an article entitled “Romney’s Ungenerous Donations.”

> Mother Jones, another liberal publication, published several articles skewering Romney for giving to his own church.

> “Romney Tax Tips: 10 Ways to Stiff the IRS,” is one such article. “Vetting Romney’s $3 Million in Charity” is another.

The Clinton Foundation has been at the center of several controversies that have hobbled Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign by eroding trust in the former secretary of state. Numerous wealthy donors to the non-profit received favors from the Clinton State Department. The foundation has also been criticized for accepting millions of dollars in donations from countries with records of human rights abuses. Saudi Arabia has given the organization between $10 million and $25 million.

> It was also revealed earlier this week that a Clinton Foundation adviser named Doug Band contacted several Clinton State Department aides in 2009 asking for a favor for a million-dollar Clinton Foundation donor named Gilbert Chagoury. Chagoury, a Nigerian-Lebanese billionaire, was at one time an associate of Nigerian dictator Sani Abache. He formed a relationship with Bill Clinton in the 1990s.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

>Another foreign donor’s activities piqued the interest of the FBI last year, according to a recent report from CNN. A bank informed the bureau of a Clinton Foundation donor’s “suspicious activity.” The FBI and three Justice Department field offices thought that the lead warranted an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. But the DOJ’s public integrity unit declined to open up a formal probe.

The Clinton Foundation may still be under federal investigation, however. The Daily Caller News Foundation reported on Thursday that Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York, is conducting a joint investigation with the FBI out of his office.

or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

EXCLUSIVE: This Is Trump’s Foreign Policy, A Conversation With Top Trump Adviser Dr. Walid Phares


waving flagAuthored by JP Carroll, National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter, 07/04/2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump “will not ask Japan or South Korea to invest in building nuclear weapons but he will speak with their leaders about how to create a safer and more stable environment in the East Asia theater” to confront the realities of a nuclear North Korea, according to the candidate’s top foreign policy adviser, Dr. Walid Phares.

Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares

The Trump adviser sat down with The Daily Caller News Foundation in an exclusive interview to discuss the candidate’s world view and foreign policy proposals.

Phares was the director of international relations and political science at BAU International University since 2013, and he has been the provost as of 2014; he is on leave now. The Trump foreign policy analyst also served as an adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

TheDCNF: First of all, I think readers would like to understand, how often does Mr. Trump rely on you and other foreign policy advisers for information while he is on the campaign trail?

Phares: Two points, first: I have a non-disclosure agreement with the campaign when it comes to specific campaign practices. Second: as an adviser, I answer to campaign leadership including Mr. Trump, and the team engages in a variety of typical research practices: briefing the candidate, providing immediate analysis to breaking news, and writing policy papers.

TheDCNF: How big is the Trump foreign policy team?

Phares: He has announced who his foreign policy and national security advisers are, I am one of them, and many others will join later. There are many people who call the campaign and give advice from time to time despite not being formally affiliated with the campaign. Ultimately, if Mr. Trump is hopefully elected, he will have at his disposal all the advisers and heads of agencies and departments that the U.S. government has.

TheDCNF: What attracted you to the Trump campaign?

Phares: Because of the dual challenges of ISIS and a legitimized Iran that still has nuclear ambitions, Donald Trump can and will shake up the foreign policy establishment. Hillary Clinton is part of the establishment and she has failed by giving poor advice to President Obama and partnered the State Department with radical groups, so there is no reason to promote her to commander-in-chief.

TheDCNF: What are the top foreign policy priorities of the campaign? Does the campaign even have foreign policy priorities given Mr. Trump’s admitted embrace of an unpredictable foreign policy?

Phares: Look, this is an America First foreign policy as laid out in his speech in April. We live in an unpredictable world, so yes, priorities do change. The campaign has a well-organized foreign policy in that it adapts to a disorganized world. At the moment, the top two priorities are how to deal with issues of nuclear proliferation and how to completely destroy Islamic jihadist organizations, including and especially ISIS.

On nuclear proliferation, Mr. Trump has made a clear statement about not having any further nuclear proliferation, especially in the hands of people who are problematic. He thinks about it as the greatest threat that we and the rest of the world will face. I would say that North Korea and Iran, and the nuclear threat would be number one.

He believes as I said that there needs to be a concerted, strategic effort to remove ISIS while also worrying about who and what could come next once they have been destroyed. It’s not just ISIS, there is still al-Qaeda as well as more covert actors like the Muslim Brotherhood that President Obama legitimized in Egypt before the Egyptians took their country back.

The homeland is facing a real, domestic, jihadi threat. We need to wage the battle of counter-terrorism, but we also need to prevent it through vetting potential jihadists coming into the U.S. and investing in border security.

TheDCNF: On the issue of nuclear weapons, how would Trump feel about Japan and South Korea pursuing the development of nuclear weapons in their own right?

Phares: When we as a campaign are in touch with South Korean leaders and politicians, they complain to us that Obama isn’t doing enough and they are concerned about his inaction. South Koreans have told us that their country has become less secure in the past eight years and they want a change, they want a Trump foreign policy.

To be clear though, Mr. Trump is not committed to any particular action. He is simply willing to have frank discussions with Asian partners about many options and has said so publicly. He will not ask Japan or South Korea to invest in building nuclear weapons but he will speak with their leaders about how to create a safer and more stable environment in the East Asia theater. Most importantly, Mr. Trump is an expert negotiator with a successful track record, which is a skill-set severely lacking in President Obama as well as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

TheDCNF: When it comes to the Iran Deal, will Mr. Trump get rid of it on day one given his disdain for the deal?

Phares: No, he’s not going to get rid of an agreement that has the institutional signature of the United States. He is a man of institutions. But he’s going to look back on it the institutional way. He’s said, so far that he doesn’t like this deal and that it was poorly negotiated. Once elected, he’s going to renegotiate it after talking through it with his advisers. One of the clear possibilities is he will send it back to Congress. The reaction of the Iranian leadership will be the next phase. So he is not going to implement it as is, he is going to revise it after negotiating one on one with Iran or with a series of allies.

TheDCNF: What can Israel expect of a Trump presidency?

Phares: Mr. Trump has made it clear to both the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that he will be a strong ally of Israel, as he has always been.

TheDCNF: For many people there is great unease with Mr. Trump’s proposal of temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. Is such a ban in your opinion actually realistic and enforceable? Do you really think it will be effective in terrorism prevention?

Phares: This issue of the so-called “Muslim ban”

TheDCNF: Excuse me Dr. Phares, that’s what he himself called for, “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Phares: Well, let’s understand what he meant and where he is on this issue. What he meant was, after the repetitive attacks on Europe and the U.S., it is clear that the Obama administration, the Hillary campaign and unfortunately, many of our European partners, do not have the answer or correct methodology for vetting people coming in from abroad.

Mr. Trump has looked at what specialists and very renowned researchers have been raising in congressional testimony at hearings. The issue is, if you don’t have a measure for detecting who is who, and who is a jihadist and who is not, then we will keep having more bloodshed.

Mr. Trump’s reaction with this policy was genuine and symbolic for provoking that debate on a need for a foreign policy and counter-terrorism strategy shift. He is telling the American public that he is going to change that policy. So, he suggested that our current political leaders implement a shutdown. However, the important part of the proposal is, “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” It is clear they have yet to figure it out, and that’s what resonated with voters who want change.

TheDCNF: But why does this policy single out people based on their religious beliefs?

Phares: Look, Donald Trump is an inclusive businessman who has never looked at one community and said, “I’m going to demonize this community.” That’s why the charges of being a racist or an Islamophobe do not apply. He’s simply looking at the problem from a national security perspective. But lately, he has been adapting his position. The more he is informed of the subject, the more he is adapting. And he said, we are ready to discuss those issues which need to be discussed. Once he will start getting intelligence briefings, he will know more about what the problem is and how to handle it so that when he is elected, he will know how to use the vast resources of the federal government. Indeed over the past weeks Mr Trump made several statements announcing that he will be focusing on the radical Islamic terrorists and where they come from. Hence the shut down will narrow to Jihadists and radical Islamists as ways to identify them would be made available

TheDCNF: On the issue of intelligence briefings, once he gets the official nomination, many questions have been raised about Mr. Trump’s temperament. Are you confident that he will not divulge any information from those briefings at a campaign rally or an interview?

Dr. Phares: With regard to Mr. Trump receiving national security briefings and talking about them, this is impossible. He has reached a point where he has already received a huge amount of information from his own experts which he knows is sensitive despite not coming from U.S. intelligence.

Mr. Trump is extremely careful and he has always been responsible with what we have told him. He controls information perfectly, which is how he was able to build a company with a global footprint. In the time that I have advised him on sensitive geopolitical matters, I have never heard Mr. Trump mention things in public that he should not. From my own experience, Mr. Trump will act as a statesman.

TheDCNF: Just to clarify, when you have talked to sources in an unofficial basis and you have passed on that information to Mr. Trump, and you have informed him that the information is credible while being unofficial nevertheless, he has understood this and subsequently when discussing foreign policy in public, he has not divulged this?

Dr. Phares: He has acted impeccably as a statesman, as someone who understands nuance. He asks many informed questions. He wants to understand the issues in detail and recognizes that he is dealing with sensitive matters.

In Part 2 of TheDCNF exclusive interview with Dr. Phares, the adviser discusses Trump’s views on China, Mexico, and more.fight

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama Admin Funds Blitz To Naturalize Anti-Trump Voters


waving flagReported by Chuck Ross, Reporter 03/28/2016

illegalalienvoters-300x300The Obama administration is supporting several non-profit groups — with federal funding through a major White House initiative — that are part of an organized effort aimed at converting green-card holders into U.S. citizens in order to vote against Donald Trump, a Daily Caller investigation reveals.

Through an initiative called Networks for Integrating New Americans initiative, which the White House formed in April 2014, the administration has partnered with the National Partnership for New Americans (NPNA), an immigration rights umbrella organization that has denounced Trump’s “hateful rhetoric.”

In a recent post to its Facebook page, NPNA asserted that green-card holders “have the potential to change America’s electorate” by gaining citizenship. The group and its executive director is also affiliated with one of the leftist groups that helped shut down a Trump rally in Chicago earlier this month.

illegalalienvoters-300x300And through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Obama administration has provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to groups that have cited Trump as one reason that green-card holders should obtain citizenship before the general election in November. The findings raise questions over whether groups that receive federal funds should be allowed to openly target specific presidential candidates. They also suggest what many conservative critics of immigration reform have long asserted: that one of the goals of activist citizenship groups is to create a new batch of Democratic voters.

Trump has become a target for Latino and immigrant rights groups for his comments about illegal aliens and his promises to build a “big, beautiful wall” along the southern border.

The revolt against a potential Trump nomination has been dubbed the “Trump Effect.” CNN recently reported that the number of naturalization applications increased 14.5 percent in June-December 2015 compared to the same period in 2014. That jump is thanks in part to activist groups’ efforts to convince many of the 4.5 million Latino residents in the U.S. eligible for naturalization to apply for it.

The federal government isn’t alone in leveraging Trump in order to boost citizenship applications. Numerous entities — including the Mexican government and billionaire George Soros — have funded community activist groups pushing permanent legal residents to obtain citizenship so that they can vote against the GOP front-runner.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Earlier this month Bloomberg Politics reported that the Mexican government is hosting citizenship drives at its consulates in several major U.S. cities. One presumptive goal of the effort is to put permanent residents on the path to citizenship in order to vote against Trump. And Soros, through his Open Society Foundations network, is funding numerous organizations that oppose Trump and support amnesty and other pro-immigrant reforms.Buying votes

Several of those groups were involved in protests that led to the cancellation of a Trump rally in Chicago earlier this month. One of those is the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), a Chicago-based outfit that is closely affiliated with National Partnership for New Americans, the group involved in the Obama White House’s citizenship enrollment task force.

As part of the task force, NPNA operates under the direction of World Education, Inc., a Boston-based social and economic development group. The initiative is being funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

ICIRR is part of NPNA’s network, and the two groups have worked together on the citizenship application push. Part of their effort involves guiding green-card holders through the naturalization process. And in some cases, they help applicants apply for waivers to avoid having to pay the $680 naturalization application fee.

The two non-profits are also connected through NPNA’s executive director, Joshua Hoyt. He previously served as executive director at ICIRR.

The White House-backed NPNA makes its anti-Trump bent no secret. Tara Raghuveer, the group’s deputy executive director, recently cited Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric as a spark for the naturalization application push. “People who are eligible are really feeling the urgency to get out there,” Raghuveer told The New York Times. “They are worried by the prospect that someone who is running for president has said hateful things.”

In a post on its Facebook page, NPNA asserted that one “silver lining to all the hateful rhetoric spewing from the presidential campaign” is that naturalization rates have jumped and “could approach 1 million this year.” NPNA’s Facebook page is also littered with anti-Trump rhetoric and links to articles criticizing the candidate. It frequently uses the hashtags “#StandUpToHate” and “#NaturalizeNow” as part of its campaign.

The Obama administration is also backing anti-Trump groups through a $10 million U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) citizenship and integration grant program. big

The Chicago-based Instituto del Progresso Latino and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, which is based in Los Angeles, both received $250,000 in fiscal year 2015 as part of the program, which aims to help permanent residents apply for and obtain citizenship.

Earlier this month, the Chicago branch of Asian Americans Advancing Justice hosted an event “to denounce the hateful rhetoric against Muslims, immigrants, and others by Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) – R and Donald Trump.”

Representatives with Instituto del Progresso Latino and the Chicago branch of the Council on Americans-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group with known ties to terrorists, also attended the event. As did Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL) – D, a Democrat who is one of the House’s most vocal supporters of amnesty. Earlier this month Gutierrez joined Hillary Clinton at an event hosted by another Chicago community organizer called The Resurrection Project in which he called for 1 million legal permanent residents to obtain citizenship in order to “stop the hate” and defeat Trump.

The effort — which Clinton praised — involved the use of “navigators” to guide applicants through the process of obtaining citizenship. “I am in support of what you are doing to try to help navigate people who are here, who are already permanent residents eligible for citizenship to take the next steps to become citizens,” Clinton said. “We especially need you now because I know people are worried and they’re afraid by some of what they are hearing,” she continued.Picture3

The Resurrection Project has also received federal funding, though it appears not to be related to the citizenship effort. Last August the group received a $36,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was given a $36,850 grant the year before.

Another group with anti-Trump sentiments that is involved in the citizenship push is Catholic Legal Services of Miami. Through the USCIS program, it has partnered with the School Board of Miami-Dade County on its “Fast Track to Citizenship” program, which focuses on guiding Cuban, Haitian, Dominican and Colombian residents through the citizenship application process.

In another article published earlier this month about the “Trump Effect,” Catholic Legal Services director Raul Hernandez said he supported residents rationale for obtaining citizenship and heralded a mass push as a “game changer.”

“If that is the motivation for them to become citizens, I welcome the motivation,” he told CNN.Hate Merchants

“It’s going to be a totally different political situation — folks with a different view of what a citizen is, raising their voice, saying, ‘I’m here and I want to have a say in the future of the nation.’”

Illegal Immigration Giant Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Clinton Surrogate Howard Dean Says Labor Unions Are Just Super PACs That Democrats Like


waving flagReported by Chuck Ross, Reporter; 02/05/2016

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean isn’t a very good surrogate for Hillary Clinton.

The failed 2004 presidential candidate threw labor unions under the bus during an interview on MSNBC on Friday while making a feeble attempt to defend Clinton against criticism over the millions of dollars she has earned on the corporate speech-making circuit.

“Why does Hillary Clinton have to put up with a double standard?” complained Dean, who served as chair of the Democratic National Committee after his failed presidential bid.

“I don’t hear anybody asking Bernie Sanders for his transcripts for some speech he made with a labor union,” Dean continued.

He then took aim at Sanders’ frequent campaign stump claim that he does not receive money from super PACs, which have become a target of progressives who support campaign finance reform.

Dean said that the statement is inaccurate since the 74-year-old candidate receives money from labor unions.

“For Bernie to say that he doesn’t have a super PAC, labor unions are super PACs. Now they’re super PACs that Democrats like, so we don’t go after labor unions,” asserted Dean, who is perhaps most famous for a maniacal scream he made following a third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses in 2004.Picture5

“This is a double-standard. I’m tired of the attacks on Hillary Clinton’s integrity. I think they are unwarranted.” 

Clinton’s paid speech income took center stage in two Democratic events held this week.

At a town hall hosted by CNN on Wednesday Clinton fumbled a response to questions about $675,000 she was paid to speak at an event for Goldman Sachs, the investment bank. Clinton said the price tag was so steep because “that’s what they offered.”

That claim was inaccurate, however, since Clinton’s normal speaking fee for all events is $225,000.

Clinton also inspired little confidence on Thursday when she was asked during a debate hosted by MSNBC whether she would release transcripts from the Wall Street speeches.

“I’ll look into it,” she said before changing the subject.

Dean said in defense of Clinton that when she gave the speeches shortly after leaving the State Department she had not committed to running for president.

Stop Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Donald Trump Hires Top Aide To Jeff Sessions To Help With Policy


waving flagReported by Photo of Alex Pappas Alex Pappas, Political Reporter,  01/26/2016

Donald Trump has hired a top aide to Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL – R) for his presidential campaign, a sign that the Republican front-runner would continue focusing on the issue of immigration in a general election. Before accepting the job as a senior policy adviser to Trump, Stephen Miller served as communications director for Sessions. He announced his hiring in an email to friends and colleagues.

The Alabama senator advised Trump on immigration as the candidate developed a policy paper on the subject. Trump also held a rally last year in Sessions’ hometown of Mobile, Ala., where the senator took the stage and briefly donned a “Make America Great Again” hat.

Sessions has not yet endorsed anyone in the race.

“I’M IN HEAVEN!” conservative commentator Ann Coulter tweeted in response to Miller’s hiring after it was reported by The Washington Post.

“He’s not backing down on immigration,” Coulter, who holds similar views on the topic as Sessions, said of Trump.

GOP candidates battle to stake their positions in first 2016 debate


waving flagPublished August 07, 2015; FoxNews.com

From fiery criticism of ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal to support for Israel and the rights of the unborn, the top 10 Republican presidential candidates did all they could to define and separate themselves Thursday night during the Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio.

The governors on stage, notably John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, touted their economic records. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz vowed to scrap the Iran deal. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson reminded voters in his closing remarks of the professional background that separates him from the rest: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

Throughout the debate, Donald Trump was the unrivaled lightning rod, but the prime-time showdown made clear he’s not the only fighter on the stage – or in the race.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reclaimed his reputation as a tough-talking executive, blasting his rivals for their positions on domestic surveillance and entitlements. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul traded barbs with several candidates, including Christie.

Meanwhile, one-time front-runner former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush found himself on defense several times and largely avoided tangling with Trump on the Fox News/Facebook stage.

Perhaps the most fiery moment came in an exchange between Christie and Paul. Long-simmering tension between the two exploded when Christie stood by his criticism of the senator for opposing NSA bulk collection of Americans’ phone data.

Paul said he’s “proud of standing for the Bill of Rights,” but Christie called his stance “completely ridiculous” – suggesting he wants to cherry-pick only some data.

“When you’re sitting in the subcommittee just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that,” Christie said.

Paul fired back: “I know you gave [President Obama] a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go ahead.” Christie said the hugs he gave were to the families of 9/11 victims, and then accused Paul of playing “politics,” by using videos of floor speeches to raise money.

The exchange was striking, even in a debate that was tense from the start. Though several rivals stood out, Trump did not hold his fire, either – making clear he’s not softening his approach to campaigning as he picks up steam in the polls.

If anything, the debate signaled the primary race is about to get tougher and is still wide open as 17 candidates vie for the lead with months to go until the opening contests.

Trump, the billionaire businessman front-runner, sparred at the outset of the debate with Paul after refusing to pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee if it’s not him and to swear off an independent run.

“I will not make the pledge at this time,” Trump said.

Paul accused him of “hedging his bet on the Clintons.”

“He’s already hedging his bets, because he’s used to buying politicians,” Paul said. (Trump later acknowledged he gave money to the Clintons and demanded Hillary Clinton “be at my wedding” in exchange; he called this a sign of a broken system.)

Trump also stood firm on his vow to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration,” Trump said, blasting “stupid leaders” in the U.S. harboring illegal immigrants.

Bush said a comprehensive solution is needed, including a “path to earned legal status,” which he said is not “amnesty.”

Moments later, Cruz said some on stage support “amnesty”, while he does not.

A big question going into the debate was whether Bush would aggressively challenge Trump and try to knock him off his perch.

But he would only go so far as to question Trump’s tone, calling his language “divisive.” Hours before the debate, Politico ran a story saying Bush recently told a donor he thinks Trump is a “buffoon” and a “clown.” Asked about that report on stage, Bush denied it.

“It’s not true,” Bush said.

Trump then called Bush a “true gentleman.”

As for his tone, Trump said it’s “medieval times” in the Middle East, and, “We don’t have time for tone.”

But other candidates were able to stand out on the crowded stage. Carson called Hillary Clinton the “epitome” of the progressive movement.

“She counts on the fact that people are uninformed. The Alinsky model, taking advantage of useful idiots,” he said.

Walker also blasted the Iran nuclear deal, as did other candidates: “This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS, it is tied together and once and for all we need a leader who is going to do something about it. It is yet another example of the failed foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton doctrine.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio landed laughs when, upon being asked about his faith in God, he said: “I think God has blessed us, he’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Rubio also vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and called the lack of accountability after the Veterans Affairs scandal “outrageous.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed to defend entitlements and stood his ground on social issues. He blasted Planned Parenthood and defended his pro-life views, accusing abortion providers of “selling” fetal parts “like they’re parts to a Buick.”

Kasich, like Walker and Bush, tried to keep the focus on his record in his state.

“America is a miracle country and we have to restore the sense that the miracle will apply to you,” he said.

And Cruz vowed, if elected, to prosecute Planned Parenthood, cancel the Iran nuclear deal and nix Obama’s executive orders. “I believe the American people are looking for someone to speak the truth,” he said.

Trump was challenged several times on his conservative views. He previously was pro-choice, but said he’s “evolved” on the issue.

Also, under questioning from moderator Megyn Kelly about past disparaging comments he made about women, Trump interrupted to say, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” He then said, “Honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry.”

The candidates squared off at the second of two kick-off debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party.

The seven other Republican hopefuls spent much of the first debate doing their best to hammer home the message that Clinton represents four more years of Obama. In the earlier debate, the candidates largely avoided sparring with each other and instead trained their fire on the Obama years — with promises to roll back ObamaCare and undo the Iran nuclear deal.


 

waving flagHuckabee: ‘The Military Is Not A Social Experiment’ [VIDEO]

Reported by Steve Guest; Media Reporter

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/07/huckabee-the-military-is-not-a-social-experiment-video/#ixzz3iA7i4eqC

During the Fox News GOP debate Thursday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated, “The military is not a social experiment.” Huckabee continued, “The purpose of the military is kill people and break things. It’s not to transform the culture by trying out some ideas that some people think would make us a different country and more diverse. The purpose is to protect America. I’m not sure how paying for transgender surgery for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines makes our country safer.”

huck


 

Fiorina stands out in Republican ‘happy hour’ debate

Getty Images

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stood out Thursday in the first GOP primary debate, taking shots at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton while showing off her foreign policy acumen.

Fiorina, the only woman among the 17 Republican candidates taking part in Thursday’s two debates, shined as the seven candidates who didn’t make the Republican top 10 squared off in a 5 p.m. undercard.

Minutes into what’s being called the happy hour debate, she took a shot at GOP front-runner Donald Trump for his connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

“I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t,” Fiorina said, referencing reports that Trump spoke with Bill Clinton ahead of his presidential launch.

“Maybe it’s because I haven’t given money to the foundation or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign,” she added.

Fiorina further highlighted Trump’s policy inconsistencies, an attack that may return in the 9 p.m. debate.

“I would also just say this. Since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare and on abortion, I would just ask, what are the principles by which he will govern?” Fiorina asked.

Fiorina outlined an ambitious agenda for her first days in office if she were to become president. She would call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Iranian supreme leader to express displeasure with the agreement, she said, then on the second day, she’d convene a summit at Camp David with Arab allies.

Fiorina, who has often been discussed as a possible vice presidential candidate for her party, closed her performance by taking a shot at Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for that party’s presidential nomination.

She criticized Clinton for dodging questions on topics including the 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

“We need a nominee who is going to throw every punch, not pull punches,” Fiorina said.

Google reported that Fiorina was the most searched candidate during the early debate, and she also received the most Twitter chatter.

Pundits also gave her good reviews, with Washington Post columnist George Will saying she “stood out with precision and fluency,” and Fox News host Chris Wallace also praising her.

Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer said she won the debate “going away.”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry also maintained a steady performance throughout the debate, using his time on stage to tout his state’s economic performance and calling for the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama to be torn up.

It was a much stronger performance for Perry than four years ago, when his first presidential campaign quickly came crashing down after he was heard saying “oops,” when he forgot that he wanted to abolish the Department of Education in response to a debate question.

But Perry also seemed to boost Fiorina, by at one point suggesting she should have negotiated the Iran deal on behalf of the U.S. instead of Secretary of State John Kerry.

“I would whole lot rather have Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation than John Kerry. Maybe we would have gotten a deal where we didn’t give everything away,” Perry said.

Fiorina has not been shy about going after Clinton, whose allies quickly fired back on Thursday.

“Carly Fiorina sure seemed to like Hillary Clinton back when she spoke before the Clinton Global Initiative,” Correct the Record spokeswoman Mary Jennings said.

Correct the Record is a rapid-response organization allied with Clinton.

“In reality, Fiorina is just another cookie-cutter, out-of-touch far-right Republican — holding the same out-of-date positions as all the rest on stage, and willing to take shots at the positive, philanthropic work of others.”

The seven candidates for the initial debate performed before a mostly empty auditorium; tickets were not sold for the undercard to the 9 p.m. debate.

The Fox News hosts moderating the debate, Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer, essentially asked each candidate at the beginning why anyone should take them seriously.

MacCallum and Hemmer asked Perry why he’s ready to lead the country now after his failed 2012 bid; whether Fiorina comparing herself to Margaret Thatcher is “a stretch;” if former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s moment had “passed;” and why Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal should be president given his low popularity in his home state.

The seven underdogs spared each other from criticism, but aimed fire at two Republicans who will be on the prime-time stage: Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Under questioning from the moderators, Jindal criticized Kasich for expanding Medicaid in Ohio under ObamaCare.

“I don’t think anybody should expand Medicaid,” said Jindal, who rejected the Medicaid expansion in his state. “I think it was a mistake to expand Medicaid everywhere, in Ohio and across the country.”

Kasich stands out among the Republican presidential candidates for accepting the expansion. Under ObamaCare, states have the choice of expanding eligibility for Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, up to 138 percent of the poverty level.Complete Message

Former New York Gov. George Pataki sided with Jindal.

“I don’t think you expand entitlements when so many people are dependent on government,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who appeared loose and open in a New Hampshire forum earlier this week, seemed tense at the start of Thursday’s debate and rambled on an answer about Clinton’s comment that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House.

But near the end of the debate, Graham shared a compelling story of depending on Social Security after his parents died.

“Today I’m 60. I’m not married, I don’t have any kids. I would give up some Social Security to save the system that Americans are going to depend on now and in the future,” Graham said.

The Democratic National Committee panned the debate as a repeat of GOP candidates who ran for president four years ago.

“They are outdated, out of touch and out of line, but not out of company. If you missed the pre-show, these ideas will be on full display again in a few hours,” DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman said in a statement.

Jesse Byrnes and Peter Sullivan contributed.

This story was updated at 7:46 p.m. 

Tag Cloud