Embedded Files
Welcome, if you've landed here, it must be God's will. Please Explore and see.
Democrats Unveil Court Packing Bill to Add Four Radical Leftist Judges to Supreme Court
Democrats Unveil Court Packing Bill to Add Four Radical Leftist Judges to Supreme Court
National Steven Ertelt
Apr 15, 2021 | 11:07AM Washington, DC
Several top pro-abortion Democrats unveiled a court packing bill today that would add four radical leftist judges to the Supreme Court. If approve, the legislation to change the number of Supreme Court justices would be the biggest change to the nation’s highest court since the 1800s.
And if the measure becomes law, Democrats will have a stranglehold on all levels of government and be able to advance their radical agenda without any opposition.
Abortion up to birth paid for at taxpayer expense would likely become a virtually permanent Constitutional right, ensuring that as many as 100 million of more babies will be killed in abortions in the coming decades. That’s why every major pro-life organization will be expected to oppose the bill and do everything in their power to stop it from getting to Joe Biden, who will undoubtedly sign it.
Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Mondaire Jones of New York, and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia will unveil their bill on the steps of the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The legislation aims to expand the high court from nine justices to 13, and the lawmakers will defend their bill by citing historic precedent for Congress adjusting the size of the bench.
The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869. Prior to that, it fluctuated in size from five to 10 justices. The Constitution does not set a number of justices for the high court.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Joe Biden unveiled a Supreme Court packing commission last week that will supposedly look into the issue further but is expected to side with Democrats to recommend expanding the Supreme Court to allow Democrats to railroad through their radical agenda on America.
Biden’s commission, created through an executive order last week, consists of 36 members and will examine “the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices,” according to the White House.
Mike Davis, president of the conservative Article III Project, said lawmakers who are part of this effort should be “ashamed” of themselves.
“Democrats who would destroy the independence and legitimacy of the high court must be disavowed as political pariahs by every last one of their colleagues. Packing the Supreme Court would be a declaration of war that could not be undone. President Biden and Democrats in Congress should tread extremely carefully. Packing the Supreme Court is a red line they must not cross. If they actually love their country, they should stand down immediately,” Mr. Davis said.
As the Washington Times reports, Republicans are already stepping up to oppose the idea:
Rep. Mike Johnson, Louisiana Republican, offered an amendment to a bill analyzing reparations for Blacks that was being debated by the House Judiciary Committee. His amendment denounced the idea of increasing the size of the court.
“The idea of packing the Supreme Court is so dangerous, we have to address it now,” Mr. Johnson said.
Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, insisted it was a radical move.
“Imagine if we reduced the number from nine to five and just kept the Republicans. You guys would go crazy,” he said.
Biden announced last week that he is signing an executive order to formally create the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States to study and debate the merits ofadding more members to the nation’s highest court. With pro-abortion Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the only reason for adding new members to the court is to move it in a left-wing direction by having a majority of the members be Democrat appointees.
The commission, which in theory will be bipartisan, will have 180 days to create a comprehensive report concerning hot-button issues such as the possibility of expanding the number of justices on the court and implementing term limits.
“The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” the White House said in a press release Friday. “The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”
But pro-life Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the idea is a nonstarter.
“This progressive court packing commission is going nowhere fast. President Biden knows that he doesn’t even have the votes in his own party to pack the court; he knows that court packing is a non-starter with the American people; and he knows that this commission’s report is just going to be a taxpayer-funded door stopper,” Sasse said.
“What the President doesn’t have is the courage to come out and flatly tell the radical left that he’s not going to pack the Supreme Court,” he added.
Earlier this year, pro-life Senator Ted Cruz slammed the court-packing idea.
Cruz has introduce a bill to stop Joe Biden and Democrats from packing the Supreme Court with more liberal activist judges. Although the legislation has no realistic chance of getting signed into law, the measure is a shot across the bows — a warning of sorts to Biden and his liberal allies on Capitol Hill to not try to pack the Supreme Court.
“As my Democrat colleagues brazenly discuss expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, this legislation and constitutional amendment ensures we prevent either party from wielding the Supreme Court as a political tool for their own advantage,” Cruz said in a statement. “I urge my colleagues to defend the fundamental liberties of their constituents—their religious liberty, freedom of speech, and Second Amendment rights—and swiftly take up and pass these proposals to prevent Court-packing.”
Joe Biden repeatedly said during the presidential campaign that American voters don’t deserve to know if he plans to pack the Supreme Court with radical leftists who will keep abortion on demand in place for decades to comes.
“Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know,” a reported started to ask in October.
“No, they don’t deserve” to know, Biden retorted.
During the presidential debate, Biden refused to say whether or not he would pack the Supreme Court.
“Whatever the position I take, that will be the issue,” Biden said when asked if he will pack the court. “The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You are voting now. Vote and let your senators know how strongly you feel. Vote now. Make sure you in fact let people know.”
“He’s not answering the question,” President Donald Trump responded.
“I’m not going to answer that question because,” Biden said before Trump interjected, “Why wouldn’t you answer that question?”
“Would you shut up, man?” Biden responded before debate moderator Chris Wallace told the candidates that they were moving on to the next segment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
04/15/21
Majority of Voters Want Feds to Crack Down on Banks With Ties to Big Polluters
Majority of Voters Want Feds to Crack Down on Banks With Ties to Big Polluters
A new poll shows large majorities of U.S. voters want greater regulation of big banks, insurers and other financial institutions to prevent climate-driven economic crises.
By
Link copied
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to say in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It's free.
A new poll released Monday shows that large majorities of voters in the U.S. want the federal government to bolster its regulation of big banks, insurers and other financial institutions to prevent climate-driven economic crises.
As Common Dreams has reported in the past month, recent studies have shown that Wall Street is a primary driver of the climate emergency.
The world’s 60 largest banks have poured more than $3.8 trillion into the fossil fuel industry since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. Furthermore, a substantial percentage of banks’ boardrooms have members with deep ties to polluting companies, including many coal, gas and oil corporations that are primarily responsible for pushing the emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses to record levels by continuing to extract and burn dirty energy sources.
Polling conducted in January and March by Data for Progress suggests that many in the U.S. public are keenly aware of this robust connection between financial institutions’ investments and environmental destruction, and they want federal regulators — including those at the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and elsewhere — to enact new financial reforms that address climate risks.
Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins - Take Action
According to the survey, an overwhelming percentage of voters across age groups, education levels and geographies support the federal government taking strong action to rein in Wall Street in order to prevent financiers from laying the groundwork for future climate-driven economic crises by continuing with business as usual.
NEW CLIMATE POLL: By a +37 point margin, national voters say they support federal actions to prevent a future financial and economic crisis driven by climate change.
Analysis from @danielledeis in our full memo:https://t.co/oC73M1Jyhc pic.twitter.com/epp12tbiXh
— Data for Progress (@DataProgress) April 12, 2021
Data for Progress found that overall, three-fifths of voters agree the federal government should enforce more financial safeguards on big banks and insurers to prevent a future economic crisis driven by climate change. Less than a quarter of voters disagree.
Support for climate-related financial regulation was almost identical for voters under 45 (61%) and over 45 (59%). In addition, a majority of non-college-educated (55%) and college-educated (66%) voters, and a majority of rural (61%), suburban (59%) and urban (57%) voters all support the federal government enforcing more safeguards on financial institutions to prevent future climate-driven crises.
Other key findings from Data for Progress include:
A majority of voters (62%) agree the government should enact mandatory climate risk disclosure rules.
By a 35-percentage-point margin, voters prefer for the federal government to enforce climate risk disclosure rules rather than let Wall Street “self-regulate” their climate risk disclosures.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (63%) agree the Treasury and Federal Reserve should play an active role in protecting the financial system from a future financial crisis driven by climate change.
A majority of voters (62%) agree that banks making investments in industries that exacerbate climate change should also make investments in frontline communities.
Data for Progress also found that “drawing a comparison between Wall Street’s activities that led to the 2008 recession and their current investments in projects and industries that drive climate change resonates with voters across different age groups, education levels and geographies.”
A majority of all voters (55%) agree that “if left unchecked, Wall Street will catalyze another financial crisis, though this time it will be driven by climate change.” Younger, college-educated and urban voters agree most strongly with that sentiment, but large percentages of voters across those categories concur.
The new findings regarding voters’ support for curbing the financial industry’s exacerbation of the climate emergency through increased federal oversight come as the Biden administration is reportedly finalizing an executive order to “develop a strategy on climate-related risks for public and private financial assets.”
In response to the polling data, members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition issued a joint statement.
“Climate policy has so far been left to markets and now we’re in a climate crisis,” said Moira Birss, climate and finance director at Amazon Watch. “It’s time that the U.S. government take the reins back from Wall Street so we can assure the rapid, justice-centered decarbonization necessary for a livable planet.”
Yevgeny Shrago, policy counsel at Public Citizen, agreed.
“Banks, insurers, and asset managers have been gambling with our health and our future for too long,” Shrago said. “Financial regulators have an obligation to use all of the tools that they already have to immediately start protecting the financial system and frontline communities from Wall Street’s contributions to climate chaos.”
Originally published by Common Dreams.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recent findings by the Senate Committee about Hunter Biden and Ukraine and China!
Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns
U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report
See pdf at bottom of the page!
Key Findings
In early 2015 the former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed, and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”
In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.
Although Kent believed that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board was awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine, the Committees are only aware of two individuals — Kent and former U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein — who raised concerns to Vice President Joe Biden (Hochstein) or his staff (Kent).
The awkwardness for Obama administration officials continued well past his presidency. Former Secretary of State John Kerry had knowledge of Hunter Biden’s role on 5 Burisma’s board, but when asked about it at a town hall event in Nashua, N.H. on Dec. 8, 2019, Kerry falsely said, “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No.” Evidence to the contrary is detailed in Section V.
Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testified that confronting oligarchs would send an anticorruption message in Ukraine. Kent told the Committees that Zlochevsky was an “odious oligarch.” However, in December 2015, instead of following U.S. objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden’s staff advised him to avoid commenting on Zlochevsky and recommended he say, “I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.”
Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the Resident Legal Advisor reported this allegation to the FBI.
Hunter Biden was a U.S. Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009 to July 8, 2014. A day before his last trip as a protectee, Time published an article describing Burisma’s ramped up lobbying efforts to U.S. officials and Hunter’s involvement in Burisma’s board. Before ending his protective detail, Hunter Biden received Secret Service protection on trips to multiple foreign locations, including Moscow, Beijing, Doha, Paris, Seoul, Manila, Tokyo, Mexico City, Milan, Florence, Shanghai, Geneva, London, Dublin, Munich, Berlin, Bogota, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Hong Kong, Taipei, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Johannesburg, Brussels, Madrid, Mumbai and Lake Como.
Andrii Telizhenko, the Democrats’ personification of Russian disinformation, met with Obama administration officials, including Elisabeth Zentos, a member of Obama’s National Security Council, at least 10 times. A Democrat lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, contracted with Telizhenko from 2016 to 2017 and continued to request his assistance as recent as the summer of 2019. A recent news article detailed other extensive contacts between Telizhenko and Obama administration officials.
In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds.
Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.
Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden.
Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow.
Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.”
Justice is going to be delayed, but not forgotten!
Federal appeals court overturns order for Hillary Clinton to sit for deposition on private email use
Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about the controversy
I tell you as the author of this site and as I've watched the Trump presidency paly out and the total corruption of the democrat party and their financial backers, Bloomberg, Soros, Rothschilds etc. there is a stench of corruption that goes to the very foundation of the court system that still impedes the investigations and the ability for the "good guys" to get to the bottom of the "De facto coup" that was perpetrated upon the Trump Administration!
By Adam Shaw, Bill Mears | Fox News 14th Aug. 2020A federal appeals court on Friday overturned an order that would have made former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her former chief of staff sit for a private deposition about her use of a private email server for government work when she served as the nation’s top diplomat.
A district court in March had granted conservative watchdog Judicial Watch its request to depose both Clinton and former chief of staff Cheryl Mills to depose them about topics related to the use of a server.
The case had arisen from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Judicial Watch to the State Department. Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about the controversy and should not have to do so again -- the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation -- but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.
Judicial Watch had requested to question Clinton and Mills about the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, but was limited to questions related to their knowledge of the existence of emails and documents related to the attack.
Judicial Watch, which initiated the case in 2014, is looking for information regarding whether Clinton used her private email server to intentionally get around the Freedom of Information Act, whether the State Department acted in bad faith when they tried to settle the case years ago, and whether the department had adequately looked for records in response to Judicial Watch's initial FOIA request.
Clinton and Mills petitioned the appeals court to prevent the depositions, and it was granted by the court 3-0.
The appeals court accused the district court of having abused its discretion, having used suspicions of bad faith by the government to opening the door to what the appeals court described as “far-reaching” depositions.
“The mere suspicion of bad faith on the part of the government cannot be used as a dragnet to authorize voluminous discovery that it is irrelevant to the remaining issues in a case,” the ruling said.
The initial case focused on Benghazi, and expanded with the discovery of Clinton’s private email server in 2015.
The court noted that the depositions focused on the server and her understanding of records-managements was not related to the initial issue in the FOIA -- which was whether the State Department had conducted an adequate search of records related to talking points to Ambassador Susan Rice as she went on Sunday shows after the attack.
Rice said at the time that the attack was inspired by an anti-Islamic YouTube video, but that turned out to be false.
“The District Court has impermissibly ballooned the scope of its inquiry into allegations of bad faith to encompass a continued probe of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind surrounding actions taken years before the at-issue searches were conducted by the State Department,’ the ruling said.
Hillary Clinton thinks she would have handled the coronavirus pandemic better than President Trump
FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS HILLARY CLINTON DEPOSITION TO ADDRESS PRIVATE EMAILS: 'STILL MORE TO LEARN'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Clinton Foundation
The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation[2] and from 2013 to 2015 briefly renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation)[3] is a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to "strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence." Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.
Through 2016, the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals. The acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been a source of controversy. The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support". Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs.
This foundation is a public organization to which anyone may donate and is distinct from the Clinton Family Foundation, a private organization for personal Clinton family philanthropy.
According to the Clinton Foundation's website, neither Bill Clinton nor his daughter, Chelsea Clinton (both are members of the governing board), draws any salary or receives any income from the Foundation. When Hillary Clinton was a board member, she reportedly also received no income from the Foundation.
Beginning in 2015, the Foundation was accused of wrongdoing, including a bribery and pay-to-play scheme, but multiple investigations through 2019 found no evidence of malfeasance.
Board of directors
Board of directors
As of January 2018, the board members are:[30]
Bill Clinton, chairman
Chelsea Clinton, vice chair
Bruce Lindsey, counselor to the chair
No Ceilings project
In 2013, Hillary Clinton established a partnership between the foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to gather and study data on the progress of women and girls around the world since the United Nations Fourth World Conference On Women in Beijing in 1995. This is called "No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project." The project released a report in March 2015.
Charity review sources
In March 2015, the charity watchdog group Charity Navigator added the Clinton Foundation to a watch list (a designation meant to warn donors that questions have been raised about an entity's practices), after several news organizations raised questions over donations from corporations and foreign governments. It removed the foundation from its watch list in late December of that year. In September 2016, it gave it its highest possible rating, four out of four stars, after its customary review of the Foundation's financial records and tax statements. A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, said that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016. In 2015, based on revenue of $223 million and an expense ratio of 12% the foundation spent in excess of $26 million to complete its mission.
Transparency
Around 2007, the Clinton Foundation was criticized for a lack of transparency. Although U.S. law did not require charities, including presidential foundations, to disclose the identities of their contributors, critics said that the names of donors should be disclosed because Hillary Clinton was running to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Commentator Matthew Yglesias opined in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that the Clintons should make public the names of foundation donors to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Secretary of State Clinton meets with Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, 21 September 2010A lengthy donors list was then released by the Foundation in December 2008,[16] which included several politically sensitive donors, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Blackwater Worldwide.[80] The Foundation stated that the disclosures would ensure that "not even the appearance of a conflict of interest" would exist once Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.[80]The foundation has been criticized for receiving donations from Middle-Eastern countries which are seen to oppress women (stoning for adultery, not being able to drive, requiring a male guardian, etc.). These countries include Saudi Arabia ($10–25 million), UAE, and Qatar. The foundation accepted these donations even though Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign platform guaranteed to break down barriers that held women back.In November 2016, Reuters reported that "The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. Secretary of State without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments." Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin opined that the Qatari gift "raised ethical questions" because of the nation's support for Hamas.
The ethics agreement between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation that had been put into force at the beginning of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State in 2009 came under scrutiny from the news media during February 2015 as polls showed her the likely 2016 Democratic nominee for president. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation had resumed accepting donations from foreign governments once Secretary Clinton's tenure had ended. Contributions from foreign donors, which are prohibited by law from contributing to political candidates in the U.S., constitute a major portion of the foundation's income. A Washington Post investigation of 2014 donations showed that there was "substantial overlap between the Clinton political machinery and the foundation". The investigation revealed that almost half of the major donors who had backed Ready for Hillary, a group which supported her 2016 presidency bid, had given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either personally or through foundations or companies they run. The Clinton Foundation's chief communications officer Craig Minassian explained that it is a "false choice to suggest that people who may be interested in supporting political causes wouldn’t also support philanthropic work."
A subsequent Washington Post inquiry into donations by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation during the Secretary's tenure found, in addition to six cases where such governments continued making donations at the same level they had before Clinton became Secretary as envisioned under the agreement, one instance of a new donation, $500,000 from Algeria for earthquake relief in Haiti, that was outside the bounds of the continuation provision and should have received a special ethics review, but did not. Foundation officials said that if the former Secretary decided to run for president in 2016, they would again consider what steps to take in reference to foreign donations.[87] But in general, they stressed that, "As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives." State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki attested that the foundation's commitment to the ethics agreement in question "has been over and above the letter of the law". In August 2016, after Clinton's securing the Democratic nomination, the Clinton Foundation announced that it will stop accepting foreign donations if she were elected.In March 2015, Reuters reported that the Clinton Health Access Initiative had failed to publish all of its donors, and to let the State Department review all of its donations from foreign governments after it was spun off from the Clinton Foundation in 2010. In April 2015, The New York Times reported that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department had approved transactions that allowed Russian state-owned corporation Rosatom to take a majority stake in Uranium One, whose chairman had donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Department "was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal." FactCheck.org decided there is "no evidence" that the donations influenced Clinton's official actions or that she was involved in the State Department's decision to approve the deal, and PolitiFact concluded that any "suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated".
2015 State Department subpoena - Main article: Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
In February 2016, The Washington Post reported that the United States Department of State issued a subpoena to the foundation in the fall of 2015. According to the report, the subpoena focused on "documents about the charity's projects that may have required approval from federal government during Hillary Clinton's term as secretary of state" and "also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton's personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons."
Australian government donations -- (note from website author) Australia is part of the (five eyes) group guilty of involvement in the spying mechanism on the Trump administration!
see: Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
Donations totalling tens of millions of dollars from successive Australian governments to the Clinton Foundation were the subject of criticism from a number of groups including the Taxpayers union of New Zealand[96] for a perceived lack of accountability and perceived conflicts of interest, some of the donations were made directly and some through AUSAID.
In 2006 the then foreign minister Alexander Downer and former President Clinton jointly signed a Memorandum of Understanding in February 2006 that gave more than $25 million to the Clinton Foundation across four years for a project to provide screening and drug treatment to AIDS patients in Asia. The donation was later made through an affiliate of the charity known as the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI). The Australian government ceased funding CHAI in 2016. In 2017 the Specialist Health Service (SHS) in a report commissioned by DFAT noted "Previously, there appears to have been an over-reliance on the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) for facilitating market access".
in 2011 a pledge of $270 MIllion Australian dollars was made by Australian Julia Gillard government to the Global Partnership for Education which in 2014 joined the Clinton Global Initiative. Julia Gillard was made a member of the board of Global Partnership for Education in 2014 after losing the Australian federal election.
According to DFAT, Australia contributed $340.8 million to the Global partnership for education between 2007 and 2014 [107] including AUD$90,000,000 in replenishment between 2018 and 2020.
A Department of foreign affairs and trade (DFAT) spokesperson[who?] responded to questions by News.com "...all funding is used “solely for agreed development projects” and Clinton charities have “a proven track record” in helping developing countries.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
During Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a number of individuals, organizations, and countries allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation either before, or while, pursuing interests through ordinary channels with the U.S. State Department.
Judicial Watch, a plaintiff in ongoing lawsuits pertaining to Clinton, alleged that email communications, obtained via FOIA requests, between officials at the Clinton Foundation and top aides of Secretary of State Clinton show improper ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Clinton denied these allegations. A Clinton spokesperson and others dismissed the controversy as election-year politics.
Beginning in 2015, multiple investigations were conducted into alleged wrongdoing by the Foundation, including a two-year inquiry initiated by the Trump Justice Department, but through 2019 no evidence of wrongdoing was found.
Controversy
The Clinton Foundation has been praised as a force for good and condemned as a "slush fund". The fact-checking organization Politifact says it is mostly true that the Clintons do not take from the foundation any salary, any other money, nor benefit personally. Supporters of the Clintons say that the controversy obscures valuable work done by the foundation. while others assert that the foundation made it possible for donors to gain access to Secretary Clinton, and influence her official actions.
First Lady of the United States
Whitewater and other investigations
U.S. Senator from New York
U.S. Secretary of State
show
Presidential campaigns
Organizations
State Department controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation–State_Department_controversy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DOJ Seizes Millions in Cryptocurrency From Major Terror Groups
by Jeremy FrankelPosted: August 13, 2020
Fight tech tyranny. Join Dan on Parler @dbongino
On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had seized millions in cryptocurrency from Hamas, al Qaeda and ISIS after the successful takedown of their cyber-enabled finance networks.The DOJ said in a statement: “These three terror finance campaigns all relied on sophisticated cyber-tools, including the solicitation of cryptocurrency donations from around the world.
The action demonstrates how different terrorist groups have similarly adapted their terror finance activities to the cyber age. Each group used cryptocurrency and social media to garner attention and raise funds for their terror campaigns. Pursuant to judicially-authorized warrants, U.S. authorities seized millions of dollars, over 300 cryptocurrency accounts, four websites, and four Facebook pages all related to the criminal enterprise.”
The DOJ also unsealed three civil forfeiture complaints detailing efforts by Homeland Security Investigations, the IRS Criminal Investigations and the FBI to take down a group of terrorist websites and to seize numerous bank accounts and hundreds of cryptocurrency accounts, according to the Washington Examiner. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia also unsealed a 14-page criminal affidavit charging Turkish nationals for “allegedly operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and engaging in money laundering, including to assist terrorist groups.”
The DOJ also said that ISIS engaged in coronavirus-related fraud to raise money for its terrorist operations.
These funds seized by the DOJ may be directed either in whole or in part to the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which directly compensates for American victims of terrorist attacks.
While this obviously is not full justice for terror victims, no one deserves these murderers’ money more.
13 Sept. 2020
Page updated
Report abuse