Sing it, Mick!

That included fly-by diplomacy of landing for an hour in some country on her bucket list, and meeting AT THE AIRPORT some clueless local officials driven in for the privilege of meeting with her.

And on her longer visits to various countries she preached and pushed for opening countries for Big Energy fracking or new trade partnership agreements. She was often acting as a Chamber of Commerce-type proponent for big corporations, rather than dealing with international crises or diplomacy.

Same for the Clinton foundation - in earthquake devastated Haiti, it "facilitated" (while skimming a percentage off the top of the financial support) building a luxury hotel, industrial parks, docks, roads, electric power sources for corporate manufacturing - i.e., infrastructure for international business investors - leaving tens of thousands homeless and hundreds of thousands more living in thrown together shanties with no electricity, water supply, plumbing.

When it comes to promoting corporate exploitation of dirt cheap labor sources in 3rd world countries, the Clinton Foundation is a full service operation. It's not enough to provide labor for under a dollar per hour, the Clinton Family Foundation will also "facilitate" schools and medical clinics - because it's good business to have minimally educated workers -have to be able to read directions and write up reports; and also healthy workers to reduce costly labor turnover. If there's a way to squeeze a dollar out of disaster, the Clintons are masters of the game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE
FEB. 27, 2016



Note: In choosing where to post this OP (General Discussion or GDP), I read the entire article and concluded it is far broader in history, scope, international relations and impact, and lessons to be learned from the complex situation in Libya and surrounding countries than is appropriate for GDP, notwithstanding the fact that the then Secretary of State is now running in the primaries.

(Continued from above)

I never sought out older men,’’ the adult victim told Newsday in 2008. She said she had never before accused anyone of assault. “I was raped,” she told Thrush, in an attack that she felt had contributed to a suicide attempt about a year later and to decades of depression and other problems.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/when-hillary-clinton-trashed-12-year-old-rape-victim
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-1975-arkansas-rape-victim-speaks-108124

Newsday interviewed the victim six years ago for their 2008 story. In it, the victim described how she had three decades of severe depression and other personal problems following the assault, and disputed claims that Clinton had once made in court against her. "It's not true, I never sought out older men. I was raped," the woman said.

The victim, with re-opened wounds, gave an angrier account to the Daily Beast in her recent interview: "When I heard that tape I was pretty upset," she said in the interview published today. "I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain't gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down. But I thought to myself, 'I'm going to stand up to her. I'm going to stand up for what I've got to stand up for, you know?"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/

Nor was Clinton’s defense plan, mapped out in a court affidavit. In it, she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.”

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim.

“I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote. “Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

The “little bit nutty, little bit slutty’’ defense has a long, ugly history. It’s jarring to see it trotted out against a kid by a future feminist icon. The argument also bears an uncomfortable similitary to Clinton White House descriptions of Monica Lewinsky, who without that semen stain on her little blue dress would have been dismissed as a stalker who had fantasized that she had a relationship with President Bill Clinton.

In the end, Hillary Clinton didn’t have to go after the 12-year-old victim’s character because the prosecution accidentally discarded part of Taylor’s bloody, semen-stained underwear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservatives-are-making-hay-out-of-hillary-clintons-defense-of-an-accused-rapist/2014/06/16/7d087efa-f576-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

snort with delight at assassinations: "We came, we saw, he died! Snort! Snort!"

Or laugh at getting a 41 year old man she believed guilty of raping a 12 year old girl off on a technicality (DA's office lost the piece of the girl's panties which had tested positive to match the victim's blood and the semen/ DNA of Hill's client). When interviewed years later about it, she blatantly violated attorney client privilege by laughingly describing how her client had passed a lie detector test, and saying "That forever destroyed my confidence in polygraph tests."

Clinton’s client, a factory worker, was facing a 30-year prison sentence if convicted of luring the girl into his automobile, plying her with alcohol and sexually assaulting her. Instead, he was able to cop a plea, admitting to the unlawful fondling of a child, and ended up being sentenced to a year behind bars, with two months reduced for time served. His co-rapist and partner in crime had already pled guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservatives-are-making-hay-out-of-hillary-clintons-defense-of-an-accused-rapist/2014/06/16/7d087efa-f576-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

GQ political correspondent Lisa DePaulo called the recording “beyond disturbing,” the Daily Beast reported, and former Washington Post reporter Ruben Castaneda said it appeared Clinton was “laughing about how clever she was as a defense attorney.”

Clinton was able to secure a plea bargain for her client, 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor, which reduced his charges from rape in the first degree to fondling a child. He served less than one year in prison, despite initially facing 30-years to life for the rape charges. Clinton filed court documents, saying the 12-year-old victim appeared to have had a history of seeking out older men and romanticizing relationships.

Clinton said in the tapes that her client’s ability to pass a lie detector test while denying the rape “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” She also laughed when discussing how the prosecution lost custody of DNA evidence that was central to the case against her client.

Washington Post reporter Melinda Henneberger wrote that Clinton’s “glee is audible about the prosecution’s big mistake in the case, when it accidentally discarded key evidence. Some are writing off the remarks, as one fellow journalist put it on social media, as ‘typical gonzo defense lawyer talk.’” “It is not, however, typical talk for a lifelong defender of women and children,” Henneberger added.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/16/why-was-hillary-clinton-laughing-about-helping-suspected-child-rapist.html

She was subpoenaed by Ken Starr to produce her billing records from the Rose law firm in Arkansas. Various high level Democratic leaders advised her to just produce them. She stonewalled and lied that she couldn't find them for TWO YEARS, when mirabile dictu! they were found in the family quarters of the White House. As it turns out, those records did not hurt her, but her stalling kept Ken Starr's investigation active long enough for Monica Lewinsky to come on the scene. And the rest is impeachment history. Bill says, Thanks, Hillary!

Classic Clinton duck, dodge, weave and prevaricate:

Later, in another sworn statement, Mrs Clinton said, quote, 'It is possible that I did once know something more that would be responsive to these interrogatories, but if I did, I do not recall it now.'

CHRIS BURY: The first lady has conceded her answers have often been too lawyerly, but Mrs Clinton has not acknowledged how her own instinct for evasiveness may have contributed to a pattern of stonewalling and possible perjury among her loyal allies at the White House.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html

Bill & Hillary: The Audacity of Opacity
The Post story notes that during a Jan. 15, 1996, interview on Diane Rehm's WAMU-FM radio talk show, Rehm asked Hillary Clinton, “In the last few days, it's been reported a number of times that early on in the administration, David Gergen, adviser to President Clinton, advised you both to go to the Washington Post, lay out all the documents and just put it all out on the table. Number one, did he advise you that? And number two, do you now think maybe that would have been a good idea?”

“Yes, David did,’’ she answered, “and I certainly understand why he gave us that advice and I have a very high regard for him. David was not with us in the '92 campaign. We actually did that with the New York Times. We took every document we had, which again I have to say were not many. We laid them all out, but the New York Times was getting many documents; they were getting many stories. They were getting, you know, accusations from other people. So when they would ask us a follow-up question, we'd have to say, we don't know anything about that, and then they would say, well, then, maybe you can't answer our question.”

“But her answer to Rehm was inaccurate,’’ according to the Post:
The Clintons had not, as she had claimed, taken “every document” they had and “laid them all out” when questions first arose about Whitewater. Five days after the Rehm interview, the White House issued a clarification which said the first lady "mistakenly suggested that the New York Times was provided access to all of the Whitewater-related documents in the possession of the 1992 campaign. According to the statement, Hillary Clinton "believed that the campaign had turned over all the documents in its possession" but had since learned that some records were withheld.”

Nearly 20 years later, has she learned that David Gergen’s advice was worth following? The appearance of “we know better” secrecy is so much more damaging than anything we know the Clintons to have done in connection with Whitewater or any number of other controversies that that’s even more worrying than the security of her personal email account.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/hillary-clinton-s-audacity-of-opacity-goes-back-to-whitewater

What does one do when caught in a bald-faced lie? Simple. Just "issue a clarification."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/10/1482720/-Clinton-Campaign-to-Host-Fundraisers-in-Mexico



http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

Sending Bill to Saudi Arabia next?

Come on gang, book that private jet and let's toddle over to jolly olde London! Hill's got a whole lotta fund-raising goin on! Party hearty with the Big Banksters and Corporate hierarchy ex-pats! Leave your cares and worries behind.

In the world of the one percenters, life is beautiful! The bonuses are beautiful! The stock options are beautiful! The board memberships are beautiful! The quid pro quos are beautiful! No worries, mate! A $2700 campaign contribution? That's chump change!

Pip! Pip! Toodles!

(I googled info on the various hosts; invite y'all to track down one or more of the sponsors! and add that info to this thread.)

2 events, back-to-back on March 6 featuring Madeleine Albright; and 2 more on March 13, featuring "policy advisor" Jake Sullivan.
Madeleine's hosts are Bob McCarthy ($250-$2700 for 1 hour event )
and Ida Levine ($2700 - 90 minutes including dinner)

Ida Levine/Director of European Public Affairs at Capital Group, London, United Kingdom
Financial Services/Current: Capital Group
Previous: J.P. Morgan, Jones Day, O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Mr. Robert McCarthy, Jr., also known as Bob, serves as an Investment Advisor at Spinnaker Capital Group. Mr. McCarthy sources and manages distressed investments for the Spinnaker Capital funds. Mr. McCarthy was a Founding Director of the emerging markets division at Morgan Grenfell in 1990. Thereafter he became a Director at Deutsche Morgan Grenfell and managed the debt backbook of the emerging markets division, and served as a Director at Deutsche Bank he ran the illiquid debt proprietary trading book of the emerging markets proprietary trading division until the spring of 1999. He serves as a Director of Pacnet Services Corporation Ltd and Pacnet Limited. Mr. McCarthy traded Latin American bank loans at Libra Bank in New York.
Corporate Headquarters - 6 Grosvenor Street, London, -- W1K 3HU
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=28700246&privcapId=27511266&previousCapId=877314&previousTitle=Redbus%20Interhouse%20plc

Monday, 7 March 2016, 18:30 - 19:30
Hosted by Noelle Doumar, Susan Gilmer, Matt Grinnell, Kate Grussing, Paige Jernigan, Carl Leiderman,
Adelaide Scardino Lopez, Audrey Mandela, Susan Schoenfeld Harrington
Home of Bob McCarthy, London, United Kingdom Address provided upon RSVP
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ticketed-events/conversation-albright-mar-7-1/?raiser=25709

Monday, 7 March 2016, 20:00 - 21:30, Hosted by Noelle Dourmar, Susan Gilmer, Matt Grinnell,
Kate Grussing, Paige Jernigan, Carl Liederman, Adelaide Scardino Lopez, Audrey Mandela,
Susan Schoenfeld Harrington
Home of Ida Levine, London, United Kingdom,Address provided upon RSVP

One week later, 2 more events:
Hosts are (1) Nader Mousavizadeh. He is Partner and Co-Founder of Macro Advisory Partners LLP. Mr. Mousavizadeh served as the Chief Executive Officer of Oxford Analytica, Ltd. Previously an investment banker at Goldman Sachs from 2004-2009, he worked in the Financial Institutions M&A group in New York, and was latterly based in Europe with a number of global client relationships. and (2) Joe and Sara Cerrell, London, United Kingdom, Address provided upon RSVP
You guys know good old Joe? He's Bill Gates' main man in London

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ticketed-events/conversation-sullivan-mar-13-2/?raiser=25709

Sunday, 13 March 2016, 7:30 pm - 9:00 pm
$1500-$2700 "contribution"
Co-Hosted by Josh Berger, Mark Bergman, Eric Beinhocker, Tabitha Claydon, Joe and Sara Cerrell, Garvin Brown and Ruthie Rogers
Home of Nader Mousavizadeh, London, United Kingdom
Address provided upon RSVP

OR: for as little as $100 - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ticketed-events/conversation-sullivan-mar-13-1/?raiser=25709

Evening with Jake Sullivan, Senior Policy Advisor
Sunday, 13 March 2016, 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
Co-Hosted by Josh Berger, Eric Beinhocker, Mark Bergman, Tabitha Claydon, Nader Mousavizadeh,
Garvin Brown and Ruthie Rogers
Home of Joe and Sara Cerrell, London, United Kingdom, Address provided upon RSVP
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125021072696830983

Undermanned and underequipped, it took PA state regulators years to finally discover the 44 violations reported yesterday from just one fracking company for failing to clean up their drilling sites within 9 months.

The worst part? The violations were triggered by the company's response to a question asked last summer – not through actual inspection of the sites.

As I learned in the Navy, you can only “expect what you inspect.” Our leaders continue to ignore this dictum, and it’s part of the reason why I have supported a moratorium on fracking.

Please watch the below video from the first debate of this election, where Sestak explained why he is still in favor of a moratorium on fracking – then please contribute what you can so that he can protect the people’s land, water, air, and health in the U.S. Senate.

&feature=youtu.be

A GS-13 federal employee; an MBA/senior VP at a major national bank; an elected local government level Dem. w/ a J.D.; a full professor (physicist/robotics) at a major university, a retired physician and his wife.

By "politically astute", I meant well-educated people with long-standing, well-informed and discerning understandings of U.S. politics. Although they are not in the Clintons' multi, multi, multi millionaire class, they are all comfortable financially. HRC's expected pro-corporate, pro-Big Finance/Wall Street, militaristic actions as president would not harm them personally - their jobs will not be off-shored; they can afford to send their children and grandchildren to university and graduate schools; their children/grand children will never be conned into enlisting in the military to fight for corporate interests.

But they are concerned for the well-being of the United States as a whole, about the transfer of wealth and for the fates of the non-one-percenters and future generations. They are each anti-fracking, anti Trans Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreements; are not spooked by the term Democratic Socialist; understand the cause and effect relationship between the US/CIA's decades of political machinations and arms supplies to central American countries and the flood of political refugees and parents desperately trying to smuggle their children to the relative safety of the U.S.

In short, they are old-school, traditional liberals - not 3rd Way pro-oligarchy "democrats".

My post did not claim to be any kind of poll or statistic. I referred to individuals from 3 states. I have long-standing friendships with each. I note from your profile that you live in D.C. If you are a government employee, a lobbyist or have some kind of employment involving either the current Democratic administration or relating to an elected official of either party, I doubt that the people with whom you work would risk publicly admitting to you whether they are considering voting for Trump. My friends/relatives each expressed surprise, i.e., some version of "I never thought I'd say this, but . . . " at coming to the conclusion re Trump v. Hillary.

And, of course, their first choice for the presidency is Bernie Sanders, who speaks directly to their values and concerns for the future of this country.