Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went online Wednesday to ask her followers to make a generous donation to the Clinton Foundation. Within seconds, social media users had torn her solicitation into sarcasm-laden shreds.
“If you’re able to give, I hope you’ll consider supporting the life-changing work of the @ClintonFdn,” <a href="https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/1476253118799269894">tweeted</a> the failed 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee. She retweeted a social media message from her eponymous foundation that read:
<blockquote>Thanks for being part of our community in 2021. Together, we’re working to: 
<ul>
<li>Confront the climate crisis </li>
<li>Improve public health </li>
<li>Expand economic opportunity </li>
<li>Inspire citizen engagement &amp; service </li>
</ul>
Join us and the Clinton family will triple your impact.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If you’re able to give, I hope you’ll consider supporting the life-changing work of the <a href="https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ClintonFdn</a>. <a href="https://t.co/DUZHJS2AOH">https://t.co/DUZHJS2AOH</a>
&mdash; Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1476253118799269894?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 29, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Twitter users appeared to have little generosity left for the Clintons’ foundation, which has long operated under an ethical cloud that it served as an influence-peddling organization shaking down foreign powers in a pay-to-play scam.
“Is this a joke?” <a href="https://twitter.com/Blonde_Bunnie/status/1476286230052708352">demanded</a> one reader.
“Cattle futures not what they used to be?” <a href="https://twitter.com/RJustesen/status/1476289098226692096">asked</a> one Twitter user.
“Does Chelsea need a new house or something?” <a href="https://twitter.com/samdell5555/status/1476298622815903747">queried</a> another.
“Only if it goes to the families of those lost in Benghazi,” <a href="https://twitter.com/fucktard_5/status/1476287356714037260">stipulated</a> another online commenter.
Others echoed some of Clinton’s more controversial statements. “Donate? <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-takes-on-critics-over-benghazi-at-tense-hill-hearings">What difference — at this point — would it make?</a>” <a href="https://twitter.com/AboutAverage/status/1476289235594350593">asked</a> one. “Donate? <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/liberal-media-not-buying-hillary-clintons-email-excuses">Like with a cloth?</a>”
One user simply tweeted a <a href="https://twitter.com/xTonyMaroni/status/1476259855166054400">side-by-side photo</a> contrasting a starving Haitian girl with Chelsea Clinton at her tony wedding ceremony.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
 <a href="https://t.co/D9CXQi6M4u">pic.twitter.com/D9CXQi6M4u</a>
&mdash; Toก้้้้้้้้y Maroni (@xTonyMaroni) <a href="https://twitter.com/xTonyMaroni/status/1476259855166054400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 29, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Clinton Foundation appears in dire need of funds, as donations dried up following Hillary Clinton’s loss to President Donald Trump in 2016. As The Daily Wire’s Ben Zeisloft <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clinton-foundation-donations-have-fallen-nearly-75-since-2016">reported</a>:
<blockquote>According to the group’s most recent <a href="https://www.clintonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/clinton_foundation_report_public_2020.pdf">financial report</a>, contributions fell from $29.6 million in 2019 to $16.3 million in 2020 — a 45% decline amid COVID-19 and the lockdown-induced recession. In 2016, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran for President, the group raised $62.9 million, indicating an overall 74% donation decline in a four-year period.</blockquote>
The foundation’s 2020 haul represents a <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/04/clinton-foundation-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-decrease-donations-corruption/">93% drop</a> in overall donations to the Clinton Foundation from its high of <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/12/clinton-foundation-revenue-low/">$249 million</a> in 2009, when President Barack Obama named Hillary Clinton as secretary of State.
“Money was pouring in when Hillary Clinton was a senior official and a candidate for president. The fact that foundation donors received special access to the Secretary of State isn’t surprising,” Scott Amey of the <a href="https://www.pogo.org/about/people/scott-amey/">Project on Government Oversight</a> (POGO) told The Daily Caller.
Many observers considered the foundation’s opaque, non-traditional structure an ethics concern — particularly after Clinton belatedly shed light on the foundation’s activities. “Under scrutiny as the 2016 presidential election heated up, the foundation <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/16/clinton-foundation-amends-four-years-worth-of-tax-returns/">amended</a> six years of tax returns for the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 fiscal years,” <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/12/clinton-foundation-revenue-low/">reported</a> OpenSecrets.org. “Changes included reporting previously undisclosed contributions and grants from foreign governments, updating reporting for revenue from speeches, listing related entities and changing the donors reported in the Form 990 Schedule B.&#8221; The foundation’s questionable financial actions reportedly elicited a federal investigation in 2020, as Hank Berrien <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-investigating-how-fbi-handled-allegations-of-clinton-foundation-corruption-report-says">reported</a> at The Daily Wire:
<blockquote>U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was assigned to lead the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, “has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter,” the [New York] Times reported.</blockquote>
Expenses have outpaced donations for years: The Clinton Foundation operated at a net loss of more than <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21119396-clinton-foundation-2020-990-and-audit">$4.3 million</a> in 2020. But Clinton’s Twitter followers seem content to let the foundation’s finances continue to dwindle.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
&nbsp;

Hillary Clinton installed as chancellor of Queen’s University

Hillary Clinton Asked Twitter For Donations To The Clinton Foundation. It Didn’t Go Well.

Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clinton

The Clinton Foundation is witnessing a rapid plummet in donations.
According to the group’s most recent <a href="https://www.clintonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/clinton_foundation_report_public_2020.pdf">financial report</a>, contributions fell from $29.6 million in 2019 to $16.3 million in 2020 — a 45% decline amid COVID-19 and the lockdown-induced recession. In 2016, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran for President, the group raised $62.9 million, indicating an overall 74% donation decline in a four-year period.
The Clinton Foundation works with “strategic partners to develop and implement programs that create economic opportunity, improve public health, and inspire civic engagement and service.” Its programs relate to increasing crop yields, battling climate change, and providing relief after natural disasters.
The organization, however, has often been accused of political motives and pay-to-play schemes. Last year, President Trump’s Department of Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-investigating-how-fbi-handled-allegations-of-clinton-foundation-corruption-report-says">investigated</a> how the FBI dealt with claims of such corruption at the Clinton Foundation.
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/durham-clinton-foundation-investigation.html?action=click&amp;module=Top%20Stories&amp;pgtype=Homepage">The New York Times</a> reported:
<blockquote>Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut assigned by Mr. Barr to review the Russia inquiry, has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Durham’s team members have suggested to others that they are comparing the two investigations as well as examining whether investigators in the Russia inquiry flouted laws or policies. It was not clear whether Mr. Durham’s investigators were similarly looking for violations in the Clinton Foundation investigation, nor whether the comparison would be included or play a major role in the outcome of Mr. Durham’s inquiry.</blockquote>
“There was a clear double standard by the Department of Justice and FBI when it came to the Trump and Clinton campaigns in 2016,” commented Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at the time. “[The] Bureau, as it is supposed to do, required that Hillary Clinton be defensively briefed about the matter so she could engage in corrective action. When it came to the Trump campaign, there were four counterintelligence investigations opened against Trump campaign associates.  Not one time was President Trump defensively briefed about the FBI’s concerns.”
The Clinton Foundation dismissed the investigation, stating that it “has regularly been subjected to baseless, politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been proven false.”
More recently, an attorney who represented Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-clinton-campaign-lawyer-indicted-in-durham-investigation">indicted</a> for allegedly lying to federal law enforcement officials.
“Michael Sussmann, a partner with Perkins Coie who also represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with Russia’s hack of the organization, is accused of making false statements during a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting with former FBI General Counsel James Baker,” Reuters reported. “This marks the second criminal case Durham has filed so far since former Attorney General William Barr tapped him in 2019 to investigate U.S. officials who probed the Trump-Russia contacts.”
According to the indictment, Sussmann “stated falsely” that he was not doing his work “for any client,” which led FBI counsel to believe that Sussmann “was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative.” However, “this statement was intentionally false and misleading” because Sussman had been acting on the behalf of clients such as an American technology industry executive, an American internet company, and the Clinton campaign.

Clinton Foundation Donations Have Fallen Nearly 75% Since 2016

The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating how the FBI dealt with claims of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/durham-clinton-foundation-investigation.html?action=click&amp;module=Top%20Stories&amp;pgtype=Homepage">The New York Times</a>.
U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was assigned to lead the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, “has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter,” the Times reported.
In August, South Carolina GOP senator Lindsey Graham, who serves as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-declassified-fbi-materials-demonstrate-clear-double-standard-for-clinton-trump-campaigns">stated</a>:
<blockquote>There was a clear double standard by the Department of Justice and FBI when it came to the Trump and Clinton campaigns in 2016. … the Bureau, as it is supposed to do, required that Hillary Clinton be defensively briefed about the matter so she could engage in corrective action. When it came to the Trump campaign, there were four counterintelligence investigations opened against Trump campaign associates.  Not one time was President Trump defensively briefed about the FBI’s concerns.</blockquote>
The Clinton Foundation released a statement about the possible investigation by Durham, asserting, “The Clinton Foundation has regularly been subjected to baseless, politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been proven false.”
The Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?auth=login-email&amp;login=email">reported in 2015</a> that a Pravda 2013 article delineated how Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy company, had acquired a Canadian company with huge uranium-mining stakes; the deal handed Moscow one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. The State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, had to approve the deal.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. … And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.</blockquote>
In 2016, when F.B.I. managers wanted a subpoena, Obama Justice Department criminal division denied the request, claiming there was not enough evidence to justify the subpoena. The Times noted, “Ultimately, the Clinton Foundation dispute embroiled Andrew G. McCabe, then the F.B.I. deputy director, who was accused of leaking information about the case to a reporter and later lying about it to the Justice Department inspector general.”
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957">The Wall Street Journal</a> noted in October 2016:
<blockquote>The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said. In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.
Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.</blockquote>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Key Speakers At The Atlantic Festival

DOJ Investigating How FBI Handled Allegations Of Clinton Foundation Corruption, Report Says

Corruption

Department of Justice

John Durham

The Clinton Foundation has been on a financial skid since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, a new report from the <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-foundation-money-loss/">Washington Free Beacon shows</a>.
According to tax records filed on behalf of the Foundation for the last several years, the Clinton Foundation, which once touted itself as a massive global force for good, but often looked to be little more than a roundabout way of influencing the political priorities of its three leaders &#8212; Bill and Hillary Clinton and their daughter Chelsea &#8212; is now a mere shell of its former self, having lost around half of its value after Hillary Clinton failed to win the White House.
&#8220;The foundation reported total revenue of just $30.7 million, including $24.2 million worth of grants and contributions, a record low for the alleged &#8216;charity,'&#8221; the Free Beacon reports. &#8220;That figure was well short of the foundation&#8217;s total expenses for the year—$47.5 million— resulting in a net loss of $16.8 million.&#8221;
That makes 2018 the second year in a row that that the Clinton Foundation failed to meet its fundraising expectations: &#8220;The previous year, the Clinton Foundation reported a net loss of $16.1 million.&#8221;
Altogether, the Free Beacon says, that means the Clinton foundation has come up $30 million short since 2016.
The Clintons have been adamant that the Foundation isn&#8217;t necessarily a clearinghouse for off-the-books political giving (though, in fairness, it also serves as an employment opportunity for their daughter), but as the Free Beacon points out, the best fundraising years the Clinton Foundation just happened to be the same years Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, and the same years she was running a presidential campaign. Between 2008 and 2016, it seems, the Foundation&#8217;s fundraising was in the billions.
It likely does not help that the Federal government has since instituted an investigation into the internal workings of the Clinton Foundation &#8212; and specifically how money was spent and whether &#8220;donors to the foundation were improperly promised policy favors or special access to Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state in exchange for donations to the charity&#8217;s coffers, as well as whether tax-exempt funds were misused,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/clinton-foundation-arkansas-probe/index.html">according to CNN</a>.
The claim isn&#8217;t merely part of a political witch hunt: someone with intimate knowlege of  the &#8220;charity&#8217;s&#8221; finances compiled a whistleblower report, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/420131-feds-received-whistleblower-evidence-in-2017-alleging-clinton-foundation">according to the Hill</a>, which uncovered the investigation back in 2018, and that whistleblower attached more than 6,000 pages of evidence they felt indicated that the Clintons were using the Foundation as a way to encourage donor competiton and build income.
The submission reportedly contains an interview with  &#8220;the foundation’s longtime chief financial officer&#8221; where he says he was &#8220;unable to stop former President Clinton from &#8216;commingling&#8217; personal business and charitable activities inside the foundation.&#8221;
There&#8217;s some circumstantial evidence to indicate that the Clinton Foundation isn&#8217;t what it seems, as well. The Foundation, unlike other charitale stalwarts on the progressive end of the spectrum, does not have a multi-million dollar endowment and the Clintons aren&#8217;t one of the Foundation&#8217;s major donors. The &#8220;ongoing endowment&#8221; is barely $2.9 million, pennies compared to, say, the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, and TIDES.
Most of its money, then comes from major donors, making it more likely that those who give to the Clintons&#8217; charity are engaging in a little &#8220;influence peddling&#8221; &#8212; and when the Clintons are out of &#8220;influence,&#8221; as they are right now, the Foundation&#8217;s donor base dries up.

Bill Hillary Clinton

The Clinton Foundation Has Lost More Than $30 Million Since Hillary Clinton Lost The 2016 Election

Bill Clinton

In the midst of the media feeding frenzy over Michael Wolff&#8217;s gossipy and fact-mangling book on the Trump White House, another piece of news broke. On Jan. 5, it was announced that the FBI has returned to investigating The Clinton Foundation. Yawn. First, the media ignored it. Then, they touched on it for half a story, after which pundits insisted that there is &#8220;nothing new,&#8221; as if they have access to the factual evidence being sought by the FBI.
Does the &#8220;nothing new&#8221; response ring a bell? It should.
Last year, some reporters stared at the clear evidence of corporate donations to The Clinton Foundation following State Department actions under Hillary Clinton and claimed there was &#8220;no evidence&#8221; of a pay-to-play scheme. Let&#8217;s explore the depth of the investigations giving them the authority to make such pronouncements.
In October 2016, NPR&#8217;s Joel Rose acknowledged that some donors were awarded meetings with Clinton when she was secretary of state but that &#8220;there&#8217;s no evidence that big donors got any special favors from the State Department.&#8221; Rose didn&#8217;t even bother to look at NPR&#8217;s own reports. A few months earlier, NPR&#8217;s Scott Detrow had laid out the 2009 case of the Swiss bank UBS and its problem with the IRS. The tax collectors wanted the identities of Americans with secret bank accounts. Clinton brokered a tentative deal with the bank, and it agreed to turn over a small fraction of the information the IRS sought. Then, presto! The bank&#8217;s Clinton Foundation donations grew from less than $60,000 to about $600,000 by the end of 2014. It also showered Bill Clinton with $1.5 million for a series of speeches.
But there&#8217;s &#8220;no evidence&#8221; of favors.
On Jan. 6, &#8220;CBS This Morning&#8221; brought on Kathleen Kingsbury, deputy editor of The New York Times editorial page. &#8220;I think that given the fact that there doesn&#8217;t seem to be new evidence on the table, the only conclusion we can come to is that this is a political vendetta brought on by the White House,&#8221; she blustered. &#8220;The FBI looked into these allegations in 2016 and said there wasn&#8217;t enough evidence to actually bring charges. So, what&#8217;s new now?&#8221;
A perfectly Clintonian summary. Hillary would be proud.
On ABC, Cokie Roberts seconded that emotion, saying: &#8220;whether they&#8217;ve learned anything new is the real question there. Why would it continue now, when they&#8217;ve already been investigating it for a good long time? So there is certainly at least a whiff of politics here.&#8221;
On Jan. 7, NBC morning anchor Morgan Radford implied that bad news for the Clintons is &#8220;fake news.&#8221; She asked moderator Chuck Todd: &#8220;So break something else down for us, this real versus fake news. We&#8217;ve learned this week about developing investigations into The Clinton Foundation and the author of that controversial dossier, but is this a real investigation, or is that just a political sideshow?&#8221;
Todd agreed it &#8220;could be a political sideshow.&#8221; Whitewater, perjury, pay to play &#8212; it&#8217;s always a &#8220;sideshow.&#8221;
Journalists would probably excuse their boredom by saying, &#8220;She&#8217;s not president.&#8221; But history strongly suggests they would be just as bored (or twice as hostile) to a Clinton Foundation probe if she had actually won the election. We can just as easily guess that if Donald Trump had narrowly lost the election, the media would still be investigating his alleged Russia collusion.
Any voters outside the Clinton bubble who negotiated their way around the &#8220;who cares?&#8221; media in 2016 could clearly see that the Clintons have filled a 50-car train with scandal baggage over the decades. But our &#8220;real news&#8221; reporters live in perpetual denial.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

BOZELL & GRAHAM: Denying The Clinton Foundation Baggage

Donald Trump

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a new investigation into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in illegal pay-to-play acts or any other illegal activities during Hillary Clinton&#8217;s tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Law enforcement officials and a witness told The Hill&#8217;s John Solomon that FBI agents from Little Rock, Arkansas, which is where the Clinton Foundation originated, are leading the investigation and have already begun interviewing witnesses and are planning more &#8220;activities&#8221; in the near future. <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/367541-fbi-launches-new-clinton-foundation-investigation">The Hill</a> reports:
<blockquote>
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.
The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.
One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as &#8220;extremely professional and unquestionably thorough&#8221; and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.
</blockquote>
Solomon further notes that a <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/by-the-way-the-fbi-was-investigating-the-clinton-foundation.html">report</a> from late last year indicated that multiple FBI offices had already started collecting information on the Clinton Foundation for over a year. An important note from The Hill&#8217;s report is the statute of limitations: the limit on &#8220;federal felonies is five years and Clinton left office in early 2013.&#8221;
Former Clinton White House aide Bruce Lindsey, who oversees the Foundation, Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, and Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the Foundation, all did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Solomon.
Prior to The Hill&#8217;s report, the Clintons repeatedly pushed the narrative that any investigations or rumors of investigations were part of a right-wing manufactured conspiracy designed to deflect from special counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s Russia election probe.

FBI Launches Investigation Into Clinton Foundation

Democratic Party

In an interview with Mother Jones, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that any investigation into her by the Trump administration represents a &#8220;politicization&#8221; of the U.S. justice system and is an unconstitutional &#8220;abuse of power.&#8221;
Clinton&#8217;s remarks were a response to a question centered around the recent <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/23523/it-begins-sessions-directs-prosecutors-evaluate-ryan-saavedra">announcement</a> that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is weighing whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate &#8220;the Uranium One deal and suspected criminal business dealings connected to the Clinton Foundation.&#8221;
Clinton responded by saying that doing so would be &#8220;a disastrous step into politicizing the Justice Department.&#8221;
&#8220;If they send a signal that we&#8217;re going to be like some dictatorship, like some authoritarian regime, where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated, that rips at the fabric of the contract we have, that we can trust our justice system,&#8221; Clinton continued.
Clinton ultimately suggested that an investigation into her past dealings, including allegations which she claims have been &#8220;debunked,&#8221; would be illegal because it would represent an unconstitutional &#8220;abuse of power.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GP7J_EsXZ3k" width="560"></iframe></div>
News that Sessions is considering appointing a special counsel to investigate Clinton was released in a letter by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd this week in response to multiple requests by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and other committee members to appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton.
&#8220;The Attorney General has directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues raised in your letters,&#8221; Boyd wrote. &#8220;These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.&#8221;

WATCH: Hillary Says She Can’t Be Investigated Because It’s An ‘Abuse Of Power’

Jeff Sessions

Trump Administration

After months of pressure from President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed federal prosecutors to begin evaluating &#8220;certain issues&#8221; regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The &#8220;certain issues&#8221; that Sessions instructed senior federal prosecutors to start evaluating include the Uranium One deal and suspected criminal business dealings connected to the Clinton Foundation, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/13/justice-dept-won-t-rule-out-another-special-counsel-to-investigate-uranium-one-and-clinton.html">Fox News</a> reported.
The letter, written by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, was in response to requests from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and other committee members to appoint a special counsel to investigate &#8220;certain issues&#8221; regarding Clinton.
&#8220;The Attorney General has directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues raised in your letters,&#8221; Boyd wrote. &#8220;These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.&#8221;
Fox News noted that the letter specifically mentioned the FBI&#8217;s handling of the criminal investigation into Clinton&#8217;s emails and the actions taken by former FBI Director James Comey.
The report from Fox News confirms an earlier report from <a href="https://www.circa.com/story/2017/11/13/nation/congressional-referrals-sparked-doj-investigations-like-uranium-one-and-clinton-foundation">Circa News</a> which stated that requests to Justice Department officials over the past year have triggered &#8220;ongoing investigations.&#8221; Circa News reported:
<blockquote>
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has confirmed it has received multiple congressional referrals for investigations over the past year regarding the sale of twenty percent of the American uranium supply to Russia&#8217;s nuclear arm, as well as calls for investigations into allegations of pay-for-play regarding the Clinton Foundation, Circa has learned.
Multiple sources, including congressional officials, tell Circa that the requests sent to the Department of Justice over the past year have led to ongoing investigations, which they say also include investigations into the alleged leaking of classified information to the media and the improper unmasking of Americans.
</blockquote>
These latest developments come just weeks after The Washington Post revealed that Hillary Clinton&#8217;s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) funded the unverified Trump dossier compiled by the opposition &#8220;research&#8221; firm Fusion GPS.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
JUST IN: Attorney General Jeff Sessions has directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate concerns raised by Republicans, including alleged unlawful dealings by Clinton Foundation and the sale of a uranium company <a href="https://t.co/YthDt9ozMn">pic.twitter.com/YthDt9ozMn</a>
&#8212; NBC News (@NBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/930259012670631936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

IT BEGINS: Sessions Directs Prosecutors To ‘Evaluate Certain Issues’ Involving Hillary; Special Counsel Possible

Russia

The Senate Judiciary Committee called on a former FBI informant &#8212; who says he was silenced by the Obama administration &#8212; to testify before the committee regarding the FBI&#8217;s investigation into crimes committed by Russian nuclear officials, an investigation that allegedly has direct connections to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
In a letter, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client to testify about the FBI&#8217;s investigation before the Obama administration approved the sale of Uranium One to Russia&#8217;s Rosatom, <a href="https://www.circa.com/story/2017/10/18/judiciary-committee-calls-on-former-fbi-informant-to-testify-about-uranium-one">Circa News</a> reported.
&#8220;Toensing said she also possesses memos that recount how the Justice Department last year threatened her client when he attempted to file a lawsuit that could have drawn attention to the Russian corruption during the 2016 presidential race,&#8221; <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355937-fbi-informant-blocked-from-telling-congress-about-russia-nuclear">The Hill</a> reported on Wednesday.
Toensing said her client witnessed a significant amount of corruption going on in the U.S. and was forced by the FBI to a sign a document that prevents him from revealing what he knows to Congress:
<blockquote>
Toensing&#8217;s client was an American businessman who says he worked for four years undercover as an FBI confidential witness. Toensing said he was blocked by the Obama Justice Department, under then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, about testifying to Congress about his time as an informant for the FBI. He contends that he has pertinent information that the Russian&#8217;s were attempting to gain access to former President Bill Clinton and his wife, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to influence the Obama administration&#8217;s decision on the purchase of Uranium One, Toensing said.
&#8220;Reporting indicates that the informant&#8217;s work was crucial to the government&#8217;s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil&#8221; and that the scheme involved &#8220;bribery, kickbacks, money laundering, and extortion,&#8221; Grassley states in his letter. &#8220;Further, the reporting indicates that your client can testify that &#8216;FBI agents made comments to him suggesting political pressure was exerted during the Justice Department probe&#8217; and &#8216;that there was specific evidence that could have scuttled approval of the Uranium One deal.&#8217; It appears that your client possesses unique information about the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction and how the Justice Department handled the criminal investigation into the Russian criminal conspiracy.&#8221;
</blockquote>
The FBI officials involved in the Obama-era Russian investigation &#8212; who allegedly hid information on crimes committed by Russian officials before the sale of Uranium One was finalized &#8212; are also involved in investigating the Trump campaign&#8217;s ties to Russian officials during the 2016 election.
After the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom was completed, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration">The Hill</a> reports, millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation from Russian officials.
&#8220;They also obtained an eyewitness account &#8212; backed by documents &#8212; indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton&#8217;s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,&#8221; <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration">The Hill</a> reported.

‘Silenced’ FBI Informant Called To Testify On Corrupt Russian Bribery Scheme Involving Hillary

A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation Tweeted, late Sunday, that the organization will not give back a six-figure donation from Harvey Weinstein, claiming the money had already been spent.
According to the Clinton Foundation website, the Hollywood mogul, now accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape — a horrifying series of events spanning three decades — donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Foundation&#8217;s &#8220;Clinton Global Initiative,&#8221; making him one of the Foundation&#8217;s largest individual donors.
But, even after public pressure, urging politicians and organizations to either return Weinstein&#8217;s checks or re-donate the money to charities who help women affected by domestic violence and sexual abuse, the Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian says the Foundation is hanging on to cash.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Suggesting <a href="https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ClintonFdn</a> return funds from our 330,000+ donors ignores the fact that donations have been used to help people across the world. <a href="https://t.co/dBXNZwAkWS">https://t.co/dBXNZwAkWS</a>
— Craig Minassian (@MinassianMedia) <a href="https://twitter.com/MinassianMedia/status/919340734301470720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
In a sense, that might be true, but a great deal of Clinton Foundation cash goes to help that desperate, charitable cause, the Clinton family. The Foundation, and its sister organization, the Clinton Global Initiative, have reportedly been, by turns, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html">cash clearinghouses</a>, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/07/clinton-foundation-deceived-irs-on-tax-exemption-from-the-start/">poorly managed tax shelters</a>, aid organizations <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation">that have difficulty delivering actual aid</a>, a <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/chelsea-clinton-foundation-marc-husband-230859">way of keeping Chelsea Clinton and her husband afloat</a> for years, and, perhaps most infamously, a <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/chelsea-clinton-funneled-money-foundation-pay-wedding/">wedding savings account</a>.
But even that isn&#8217;t preventing the Clinton Foundation from either digging deep into its own pockets to return fungible assets to Weinstein&#8217;s account, or setting aside the quarter million or so, and earmarking it for a special project, somehow related to Weinstein&#8217;s troubles — maybe a domestic violence shelter in Europe, or an aid organization dedicated to protecting the victims of Hollywood directors (since there seem to be so many).
But Hillary Clinton&#8217;s namesake foundation is operating, instead, remarkably like Hillary Clinton: pretending that the assets are buried so deep that it&#8217;s no longer possible to quantify or separate them from their assets at large.
Maybe they should try just a little bit harder.

The Clinton Foundation Is Keeping Harvey Weinstein’s $250,000 Donation

Harvey Weinstein

Sexual Misconduct

Julia-Louis Dreyfus, known for playing Elaine Benes on Seinfeld and for currently starring in HBO&#8217;s comedy Veep, was delighted to receive a fan note from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2013. However, the release of several Clinton emails stemming from the FBI investigation into the infamous server scandal revealed that not only had the twice failed Democratic presidential candidate not seen a single episode of Veep, she did not even know who Dreyfus was at the time. 
Appearing on The Late Late Show with James Corden on Friday, she told the host about the awkward incident of finding out on social media that Clinton had never heard of her. 
Corden joked that the actress was personally caught up in the email scandal. 
Dreyfus sarcastically replied, &#8220;Yes, I feel sort of responsible.&#8221;
She went on to explain, &#8220;Well, what happened was this. Someone who worked on Veep also worked with Hillary Clinton and did her make-up. My friends in the makeup department, as a gift, they gave me a note from Hillary Clinton back when she was still secretary of state.&#8221;
Dreyfus described the note as referring to several policy points that Clinton supported and concluded with a signature. 
&#8220;So, of course, I was thrilled to get this. I had it framed in my house,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;About two years later, the emails were all sort of flowing out. And someone tweeted to me an email Hillary Clinton sent to her staffer that said &#8216;a friend of mine needs me to write something to Julie [sic] Dreyfus. Any idea what to say she&#8217;s on some show.&#8217;&#8221;
She added that the staffer responded with equal pop culture ignorance. &#8220;So he writes back, &#8216;it&#8217;s called Veep. I will not admit I have not seen it.'&#8221;
&#8220;So, you can see, she was up to no good,&#8221; said Dreyfus.
Dreyfus explained that she holds no bitterness over the incident and in fact hung the email next to the personalized note in her house. 
You can watch the clip below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="380" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rdtOKv8jjqc" width="630"></iframe></div>
(H/T <a href="http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/actress-received-note-hillary-later-learned-clinton-no-idea/">Free Beacon</a>)

‘Veep’ Actress Reveals She’s Another Victim Of The Clinton Email Scandal

Hollywood

Jerry Seinfeld

Julia Louis-Dreyfus

We gave the Republican party total control of the federal government and all these grifters have managed to do is investigate Trump. Six months into a golden opportunity that is rapidly closing, Obamacare is still the law of the land, the border wall is not funded, and there is little hope of tax reform. The Republican Party is corrupt, cowardly, and useless. On top of that legitimate frustration, Trump has an Attorney General in Jeff Sessions who is just as cowardly and useless.
First, after allowing himself to be intimidated by the media, Sessions left Trump&#8217;s flank exposed by recusing himself &#8212; for no good reason &#8212; from the Russian conspiracy theory that both the Democrats and the media are using to plot a presidential coup. Then, almost as quickly as Sessions could recuse himself, his just-as-useless deputy appoints Robert Mueller &#8212; a partisan hack who has been leaking like a crazy man and hiring only partisan Democrats &#8212; as a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Russian matter, a matter where not a single shred of wrongdoing has been exposed.
Mueller is not only conducting a partisan witch hunt, but thanks to Sessions&#8217; own Department of Justice, Mueller and his merry band of left-wing partisans are conducting an unprecedented oppo-research dig in advance of the 2020 election, and doing so at taxpayer expense.
Heckuva job, Jeffy!
If that is not bad enough, where the hell has Sessions been these past few months on other important matters? Where are the investigations we have all been waiting years for, the serious investigations into the Clinton Crime Foundation? Where is the investigation into the actual Russian collusion between Hillary, our uranium, Putin, and Bill&#8217;s epic speaking fees?
Where are we at with the Democrat National Committee&#8217;s refusal to turn over its computer servers (which it claims were hacked by the Russians to benefit Trump)?
Where are the investigations into all of these illegal Deep State leaks?
Where is the legal sh*tstorm over the Obama administration figuratively wiretapping Trump through all the illegal unmasking and leaking by way of literal wiretaps?
While the Democrats and media hurl all kinds of fire, although he has plenty of fire on his own to fight back with, Sessions The Recused just sits there with his thumb in his mouth doing nothing to not only investigate matters that are far from settled, but to fight for his own freakin&#8217; president.
This is unforgivable.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails &amp; DNC server) &amp; Intel leakers!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/889790429398528000">July 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign &#8211; &#8220;quietly working to boost Clinton.&#8221; So where is the investigation A.G. <a href="https://twitter.com/seanhannity">@seanhannity</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/889788202172780544">July 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
My guess is that no small part of Trump&#8217;s frustration comes from the incalculable anguish of watching his own family dragged through this conspiracy mud. Meanwhile, someone who could actually do something to relieve some of this anguish, his own Attorney General, just sits there lounging in his comfortable recuser eating Cheetos and flipping through the cable channels, doing everything but what he ethically should be doing to defend his president and investigate these Obama-era scandals that were swept under the rug by previous attorney generals and our lying news media.
Man up and fight or get the hell out, Jeff.
That is the public message Trump is sending, not just to Sessions but to all the feckless cowards&#8230;
And the only thing wrong with this message is that it should have been sent months ago.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/NolteNC">@NolteNC</a>. Follow his Facebook Page <a href="https://www.facebook.com/JohnNolteNC/?skip_nax_wizard=true">here</a>.

Menu