The Clintons have faced scrutiny this year for their family foundation’s acceptance of foreign donations, including allegations in a new book Clinton Cash, which alleges that foreign entities gave to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton for speeches and in turn received “favors” from the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
Rand Paul took the stage in Louisville this month for his presidential campaign kickoff and delivered a thunderous pronouncement to cheering supporters. “We limit the president to two terms. It’s about time we limit the terms of Congress!” he blared.
Back in the U.S. Senate, the idea was quickly dismissed — by Paul’s fellow Republicans.
After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to life-changing work.”
There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.
BenSwann.com recently brought news of efforts by a coalition of high-profile civic leaders and current and former elected officials called Change the Rule to pressure the Commission on Presidential Debates to adjust its rule regarding the inclusion of third-party candidates in US presidential debates.
Goldman Sachs paid former President Bill Clinton $200,000 to deliver a speech in the spring of 2011, several months before the investment banking giant began lobbying the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, federal records reviewed by International Business Times show.
The headline in Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when the newspaper served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
One of the most glaring myths propagated by Washington — especially the two parties’ media loyalists — is that bipartisanship is basically impossible, that the two parties agree on so little, that they are constantly at each other’s throats over everything. As is so often the case for Washington partisan propaganda, the reality is exactly the opposite: from trade deals to Wall Street bailouts to a massive National Security and Penal State, the two parties are in full agreement on the bulk of the most significant D.C.
A war vote is a vote that everybody makes on the basis of what think know, what they believe, who they trust. There’s large number of people who supported the war. The consequences have been terrible in terms of what it meant to our veterans and the rest of that, but no. the answer is no. I don’t think should disqualify her…