Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Obama Still Owes Big Campaign Money

Posted on by

From the Federal Election Commission and per Obama’s best friend Marty Nesbitt, the campaign treasurer:

The actual report is here.

REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

By An Authorized Committee of a
Candidate For the Office of President or Vice President
(Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)

FILING FEC-1003858

1. Obama for America

PO Box 8102
Chicago, Illinois 60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445

This report contains activity for a Primary Election

4. Report Type = APR QUARTERLY

For election on 11/06/2012 in the State of ____

Filed 04/15/2015

SUMMARY
DETAILED SUMMARY PAGE
ALLOCATIONS BY STATE
Schedule A Filings (ITEMIZED RECEIPTS)
Schedule B Filings (ITEMIZED DISBURSEMENTS)

SUMMARY

5. Covering Period 01/01/2015 Through 03/31/2015

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 1545621.22
7. Total Receipts This Period 157567.45
8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 1703188.67
9. Total Disbursements This Period 1602644.79
10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 100543.88
11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00
    Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 2334041.69
    Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 0.00
14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) -1025295.97
15. NET Operating Expenditures 41464012.91 
Treasurer: Martin H. Nesbitt
Date Signed: 04/15/2015

(End Summary, FEC FORM 3P)

DETAILED SUMMARY

Of Receipts And Disbursements

Column A
This Period		 Column B
Election
Cycle-To-Date		 Column C
I. Receipts
16. Federal Funds (Itemize on Schedule A-P) 0.00 0.00 0.00
17. Contributions (other than loans) From:
    (a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
          (i)   itemized 0.00 529349.14 0.00
          (ii)  unitemized 85.00 1239238.50 0.00
          (iii) Total contributions 85.00 1768587.64 0.00
    (b) Political Party Commitees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Other Political Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (d) The Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (e) Total Contributions (11(a) + (b) + (c) + (d)) 85.00 1768587.64 0.00
18. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees 0.00 8711995.18 0.00
19. Loans Received:
    (a) Loans Received From or Guaranteed By Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (b) Other Loans 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Total Loans (19(a) + (b)) 0.00 0.00 0.00
20. Offsets to Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc):
    (a) Operating 0.00 4994560.09 0.00
    (b) Fundraising 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Legal and Accounting 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (d) Total Offsets To Expenditures (20(a) + (b) + (c)) 0.00 4994560.09 0.00
21. Other Receipts (Dividends, Interest, etc) 157482.45 7275087.42 0.00
22. Total Receipts 157567.45 22750230.33 0.00
II. Disbursements
23. Operating Expenditures 1602599.79 46458573.00 0.00
24. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
25. Fundraising Disbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00
26. Exempt Legal and Accounting Disbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00
27. Loan Repayments Made
    (a) Repayments of loans Made or Guaranteed By Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (b) Other Loans 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Total Loans (27(a) + (b)) 0.00 0.00 0.00
28. Refunds of Contributions To:
    (a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees 45.00 2793883.61 0.00
    (b) Political Party Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Other Political Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c)) 45.00 2793883.61 0.00
29. Other Disbursements 0.00 7829285.40 0.00
30. Total Disbursements 1602644.79 57081742.01 0.00
III. Contributed Items (stock, Art Objects, Etc.)
31. Items On Hand To Be Liquidated 0.00

 

(End Detailed Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)

ALLOCATION OF PRIMARY EXPENDITURES BY STATE

For A Presidential Candidate

1. Obama for America

   PO Box 8102
   Chicago, Illinois  60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445

Allocation By State

State Allocation
This period		 Total
Allocation
To Date		 State Allocation
This period		 Total
Allocation
To Date
Alabama 0.00 0.00   Nebraska 0.00 0.00
Alaska 0.00 0.00   Nevada 0.00 0.00
Arizona 0.00 0.00   New Hampshire 0.00 0.00
Arkansas 0.00 0.00   New Jersey 0.00 0.00
California 0.00 0.00   New Mexico 0.00 0.00
Colorado 0.00 0.00   New York 0.00 0.00
Connecticut 0.00 0.00   North Carolina 0.00 0.00
Delaware 0.00 0.00   North Dakota 0.00 0.00
District of Columbia 0.00 0.00   Ohio 0.00 0.00
Florida 0.00 0.00   Oklahoma 0.00 0.00
Georgia 0.00 0.00   Oregon 0.00 0.00
Hawaii 0.00 0.00   Pennsylvania 0.00 0.00
Idaho 0.00 0.00   Rhode Island 0.00 0.00
Illinois 0.00 0.00   South Carolina 0.00 0.00
Indiana 0.00 0.00   South Dakota 0.00 0.00
Iowa 0.00 0.00   Tennessee 0.00 0.00
Kansas 0.00 0.00   Texas 0.00 0.00
Kentucky 0.00 0.00   Utah 0.00 0.00
Louisiana 0.00 0.00   Vermont 0.00 0.00
Maine 0.00 0.00   Virginia 0.00 0.00
Maryland 0.00 0.00   Washington 0.00 0.00
Massachusetts 0.00 0.00   West Virginia 0.00 0.00
Michigan 0.00 0.00   Wisconsin 0.00 0.00
Minnesota 0.00 0.00   Wyoming 0.00 0.00
Mississippi 0.00 0.00   Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00
Missouri 0.00 0.00   Guam 0.00 0.00
Montana 0.00 0.00   Virgin Islands 0.00 0.00
  TOTALS 0.00 0.00

(End Allocation of Primary Expenditures Page, FEC FORM 3P)

Generated Wed Apr 22 00:39:30 2015

Did Susan Rice Leak Classified Info on Purpose?

Posted on by

There was a profound moment when the Prime Minister of Israel gave a presentation at the United Nations on Iran’s readiness of their break-out period on their nuclear weapon using a cartoon as a prop. The Obama administration later used it as satire against Netanyahu.

Capture

Seems, a year or so later, the White House is agreeing….pigs fly…..

Did Susan Rice Disclose Classified Info on Iran?

Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reports Tuesday that the Obama administration kept secret until the beginning of April Iran’s two to three month breakout time for a nuclear weapon, saying “the administration only declassified this estimate at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public.”

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking to reporters on Monday, said that the administration has held this assessment for “quite some time.” Lake says that Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, confirmed Monday “that the two-to-three-month estimate for fissile material was declassified on April 1.”

However, at least one member of the administration publicly spoke about the two-to-three-month breakout time frame prior to April. On March 2, 2015, National Security Advisor Susan Rice addressed the annual AIPAC meeting and said the following [emphasis added]:

This is my third point—a good deal is one that would verifiably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.  Every single one.

Any deal must prevent Iran from developing weapons-grade plutonium at Arak, or anywhere else.

Any deal must prevent Iran from enriching uranium at its nuclear facility at Fordow—a site we uncovered buried deep underground and revealed to the world in 2009.

Any deal must increase the time it takes Iran to reach breakout capacity—the time it would take to produce a single bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium.  Today, experts suggest Iran’s breakout window is just two to three months.  We seek to extend that to at least one year.

Rice’s disclosure suggests that either DNI spokesman Brian Hale is incorrect in his assertion that the assessment was declassified on April 1, or Rice revealed classified information.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Rice’s March disclosure.

From HotAir:

Only a few short weeks later, that framework nuclear deal appears increasingly dubious. Iran has demanded that it sunset after only five rather than ten years. The Islamic Republic also wants to operate twice the number of centrifuges agreed to in Switzerland. The administration insists that it will provide sanctions relief to Iran in stages, but Tehran contends that it will have total relief right up front. According to The Wall Street Journal, the mullahs learned on Friday that they will receive billions in unfrozen funds once a deal is signed even as American and Iranian warships engage in a tense standoff off the coast of Yemen.

Few believe that the complex international sanctions regime in place today, a web of commitments that took years to assemble, could “snap back” in the event that Iran failed to live up to its end of the deal. “[O]nly a credulous sixth-grader could imagine that in the event that there is some evidence of Iranian cheating (and the evidence inevitably will be murky, incomplete, and subject to debate) that countries such as France and Germany, which are eager to do business with Tehran, much less countries such as China and Russia, which are not only cozy with Tehran but hostile to Western interests in general, will agree to reimpose sanctions,” Commentary Magazine’s Max Boot observed.

While Netanyahu might not have accurately assessed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in 2012, he was apparently correct when he insisted earlier this month that “Iran’s breakout time from start of deal will be near zero.” Today, Americans are learning that the administration knew Netanyahu was telling the truth about Iranian breakout times even as it was mocking him before an audience of the president’s sycophantic and naïve Twitter fans. As The Daily Beat’s Eli Lake wrote on Tuesday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and a spokesman with the Director of National Intelligence’s office both confirmed that Iran could have the materials necessary to construct a fissionable device before the autumn.

“Here is the puzzling thing,” Lake wrote, “When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune.”

He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement.

Back in 2013, when Congress was weighing new sanctions on Iran and Obama was pushing for more diplomacy, his interest was in tamping down that sense of urgency. On the eve of a visit to Israel, Obama told Israel’s Channel Two, “Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close.”

On Oct. 5 of that year, Obama contrasted the U.S. view of an Iranian breakout with that of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who at the time said Iran was only six months away from nuclear capability. Obama told the Associated Press, “Our assessment continues to be a year or more away. And in fact, actually, our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services.”

So, why mislead as this White House has misled when it invites an embarrassing rebuke like this? Because the lie is heard by all the right audiences, whereas the correction will languish in the obscure corners of the country where honesty remains a virtue.

Despite its mounting failures, the administration maintains its legitimacy by providing the smug and complacent reasons that justify their self-approbation. For many, the facts are fungible. So long as they believe in their hearts the president is brighter and more capable than his political opponents, no amount of demonstrable mendacity from the White House could shatter that belief. Even amid increasing evidence that this article of faith might not be true, the faithful will accept anything – even hastily constructed Twitter memes – so long as it affirms their creed.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant,” Ronald Reagan said in a pivotal 1964 speech, “it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” And this White House hopes to keep it that way.

 

So Goes Greece, Goes the European Union?

Posted on by

Stunned Greeks React To Initial Capital Controls And The “Decree To Confiscate Reserves”, And They Are Not Happy

Earlier today, following weeks of speculation, Greece finally launched the first shot across the bow of capital controls, when it decreed that due to an “extremely urgent and unforeseen need” (ironically the need was quite foreseen since about 2010, but that is a different story), it would be “obliged” to transfer – as in confiscate – “idle cash reserves” located across the country’s local governments (i.e., various cities and municipalities) to the Greek central bank.

Several hours later the decree which was posted in the government gazette has finally percolated among the population, and the response to what even ordinary Greeks realize is now the endgame, is less than exuberant.

Bloomberg reports, that “as Greece struggles to find cash to stay afloat, local authorities say they oppose a government decision to use their reserves for short-term financing.”

“The government’s decision to seize our reserves not only raises legal and constitutional issues, but also a moral one,” said George Papanikolaou, mayor of Glyfada, the third-largest municipality in the metropolitan region of Attica after Athens and Piraeus. “We have a responsibility to serve our citizens,” Papanikolaou said by phone on Monday. Glyfada has about 16 million euros in cash reserves, he said.

George is unhappy because as recently as tomorrow, he will find there is precisely zero euros in his public bank account, as all the money has now been forcibly sequestered by the government in order to repay future Troika, pardon, IMF obligations.

Sadly for Greece, this is the only option left as the money has now fully run out: Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras ordered local governments and central government entities to move their cash balances to the central bank for investment in short-term state debt.

From Bloomberg:

The decree to confiscate reserves held in commercial banks and transfer them to the Bank of Greece could raise as much as 2 billion euros ($2.15 billion), according to two people familiar with the decision. The money is needed to pay salaries and pensions at the end of the month, the people said.

 

“It is a politically and institutionally unacceptable decision,” Giorgos Patoulis, mayor of the city of Marousi and president of the Central Union of Municipalities and Communities of Greece, said in a statement on Monday.“No government to date has dared to touch the money of municipalities.”

It took the radical leftist one all of 2 months since coming to power.

And the punchline is that the use of confiscated proceeds is unclear: the government says it is to pay pensions and wages, but recall that the same government recently confiscated pensions to repay the IMF, so according to the chain of logic, the government first raided pensions, and now municipalities, just to repay the dreaded Troika.

The Athens city council and the union of municipalities and communities in Greece will convene tomorrow to debate the order, a press officer of the mayor’s office said.

And one everyone realizes what just happened, expect the riot cam and the Greek Pay-Per-Riot channel, which has been on hiatus since the summer of 2012, to be fully reactivated.

The Clinton’s and False Philanthropy

Posted on by

The Latest Available Clinton Foundation Filings Appear Deceptive

by: Charles Ortel

My interest in the Clinton Foundation financial disclosures was originally sparked by an article written in the New York Times entitled “Unease at Clinton Foundation over Finances and Ambitions.”

Considering this article with the benefit of hindsight after having poured through reams of public filings and comments made by the Clinton Foundation as well as related parties, one wonders how seriously management, directors, and other employees take their manifold legal duties, particularly when it comes to making truthful and complete disclosures.

Since August 2013, few investigative reporters have dug deeply enough below the surface of Clinton Foundation filings, seeking and finding answers to questions concerning the stated financial performance of significant constituent entities as well as the consolidated whole.

I have completed a summary review of these filings, and have attached a report which answers a few key questions. Specifically:

  1. What do Clinton Foundation disclosures tell informed readers about the stewardship of billions of dollars in “charitable contributions” sent to Little Rock, to New York City, to Boston, to London, and to Stockholm from numerous donors with modest means, from wealthy and powerful donors, and from a host of governments and government-connected benefactors?
  2. Did management exercise vigilance to ensure that the Clinton Foundation actually carried out its original and its amended tax-exempt purposes?
  3. Did directors take reasonable care, as fiduciaries, under applicable state, federal, and foreign laws to operate this charity serving, at all times, a public interest?
  4. Are all business arrangements with material “related” parties fully and adequately disclosed in annual, publicly available filings that comparable charities regularly complete on time?

Or, do the Clintons, and others who operate the Clinton Foundation, function as Robin Hood in reverse? Do they dupe small, modest income donors to enrich themselves and cronies?

Headline Conclusions of the First Foundation Report

The truth is that it is difficult to perform penetrating analysis of publicly available financial information pertaining to the Clinton Foundation because, so far, it is not technically complete in numerous material respects.

The numbers that the Clinton Foundation supplies to the public in its legally mandated filings do not add up, are frequently incorrect, and appear to be materially misleading. In numerous cases, the Clinton Foundation appears to have followed inconsistent policies adding in appropriate portions of the various activities it pursued around the world to create “consolidated” financial statements.

As the attached report notes, In several instances portions were added only for some of the years in which the entities remained in operation, artificially enhancing purported financial results. In other cases, important elements of activity were improperly characterized and combined.

Meanwhile the Foundation solicits donations even though its informational filings are not in compliance with applicable law. Regulators at Federal, State, Local, and international levels are not doing what they should do to protect the public.

Why?

And how long must we wait before regulators at home and abroad remedy rampant and persistent deficiencies in the Clinton Foundation’s operating and disclosure practices.

The attached print report details ten specific concerns about the most recent Clinton Foundation filings. I invite your considered reaction.

Read the full interim report here.

Clinton Foundation(s) Collusion

Posted on by

From their website:

Creating Partnerships of Purpose We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity

New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation

The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.”

But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author  to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes Mr. Paul and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have been briefed on the book’s findings, and its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates’ campaigns.

Conservative “super PACs” plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton.

And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job.

A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and he said “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”

The timing is problematic for Mrs. Clinton as she begins a campaign to position herself as a “champion for everyday Americans.”

From 2001 to 2012, the Clintons’ income was at least $136.5 million, Mr. Schweizer writes, using a figure previously reported in The Post. “During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and individuals, he writes. “Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

The Clinton Foundation has come under scrutiny for accepting foreign donations while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. Last week, the foundation revised its policy to allow donations from countries like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Britain but prohibit giving by other nations in the Middle East.

Mr. Schweizer’s book will be released the same day former President Bill Clinton and the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, will host the Clinton Global Initiative gathering with donors in Morocco, the culmination of a foundation trip to several African nations. (A chapter in the book is titled “Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa.”)

There is a robust market for books critical of the Clintons. The thinly sourced “Blood Feud,” by Mr. Klein, at one point overtook Mrs. Clinton’s memoir “Hard Choices” on the best-seller list.

But whether Mr. Schweizer’s book can deliver the same sales is not clear. He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons.

His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes.

*** Now the questions that need to be asked include what policies did the State Department, the NSC and the White House take covertly with regard to diplomacy and those affects on strategies.