More Hillary Emails Continue to Surface, Contents are Crazy

Five Clinton friends who got special State Department access

WashingtonExaminer: Hillary Clinton’s campaign has struggled to explain a batch of previously undisclosed emails that contain fresh evidence of cooperation between the State Department and donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The records, which emerged through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by conservative-leaning Judicial Watch, offered a narrow window into the extent to which friends and donors were afforded consideration and access above what was provided to other outsiders.

The emails revived questions about whether the former secretary of state maintained an appropriate distance from her family’s philanthropy. While State Department officials denied suggestions that the documents produced any evidence of impropriety, Clinton’s critics took her to task Wednesday for allegedly selling influence through the foundation.

As the Democratic nominee labors to repair a public trust that was damaged badly by the FBI’s investigation into her private email use, the signs of quid pro quo contained in the latest records will likely force Clinton to confront the long-simmering controversy surrounding her family’s foundation.

Gilbert Chagoury

Several of the most controversial emails came from the inbox of Douglas Band, a longtime Clinton aide who was then serving in a top role at the Clinton Foundation. Band went on to found a consulting firm, Teneo Strategies, whose work with clients that had interests before the State Department raised red flags.

Band wrote Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, in April 2009 to demand a major Clinton Foundation donor be given access to the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon.

Gilbert Chagoury, the Lebanese-born Nigerian businessman who had written checks to the Clinton Foundation, has a long history of giving to Clinton causes — even when election laws did not permit him to do so. His $460,000 donation to a group accused of funneling foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee in 1997 earned him an invitation to dine at the White House with the Clintons amid a congressional probe into the arrangement.

Chagoury’s ties to the Clinton State Department have come under fire in the past due to the former secretary of state’s refusal to place Boko Haram, a Nigerian terror group, on the official list of foreign terrorist organizations. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., wrote to the State Department last year to inquire about the delay in designating Boko Haram a terrorist outfit and whether it was related to Chagoury’s proximity to Clinton.

Band stressed in his email to Abedin that the Chagoury request was “very important” and instructed her to reach out to the donor immediately.

Jennifer Granholm, a former governor of Michigan and current Clinton surrogate, attempted to dismiss Wednesday any association between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department’s rush to grant Chagoury access to a high-ranking official.

“Well, I mean, I wasn’t in the State Department at the time,” Granholm said during an appearance on CNN. “But I do know that [Clinton] has abided by the ethics agreement she signed at the beginning, which was not to take any action on the part of the State Department that mixed foundation business.”

Granholm said Band had reached out to Abedin in his capacity as a representative of former President Bill Clinton, not as an employee of the family’s charity.

Even that explanation, if true, would not eliminate all the potential conflicts of interest at play, as Bill Clinton netted generous speaking fees from Nigerian entities linked to Chagoury.

Wall Street executive

Hillary Clinton welcomed a Feb. 2009 meeting with Stephen Roach, a top executive at Morgan Stanley, after Roach slipped her a copy of the testimony he planned to deliver before Congress the following week.

The Democratic nominee instructed her staff to arrange a time to meet Roach, who then ran the bank’s Asian operations, in Beijing during her upcoming swing through southeast Asia.

Morgan Stanley has given up to $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show. Roach had personally donated heavily to Clinton’s past political campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The testimony Roach delivered encouraged U.S. officials to dial back the tough talk on China and embrace trade deals that included Beijing’s interests. The Morgan Stanley executive chastised politicians for saddling Wall Street with the blame for economic failures and encouraged the U.S. to address a receding middle class “without derailing globalization.”

In an interview with a Chinese television station and separate remarks alongside the Chinese foreign minister just days later, Clinton echoed many of Roach’s points about the need for Americans to save more of their paychecks and for China to increase its consumption of American goods.

It is unclear whether Roach’s inside access to Clinton persuaded her to hew closely to the views on Chinese trade he had laid out for her.

But the timing of his communications with Clinton raises questions about whether Roach exerted influence over the former secretary of state.

What’s more, the Beijing tryst was not the only time Clinton took advice from the Morgan Stanley executive.

In July 2010, Clinton told Roach she was “delighted” to receive an email from him and solicited his thoughts on upcoming bilateral talks about the economy with the Chinese. She again pushed her staff to schedule a meeting with Roach.

Morgan Stanley executives have given extensively to Clinton’s presidential campaign, despite her promise to crack down on the excesses of Wall Street.

Lobbyist access

When Jonathan Mantz, the former finance director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign who had become a lobbyist, reached out to the secretary of state in Feb. 2009 to share some “great news,” Hillary Clinton instructed her assistant to add him to a list of people she was scheduled to call.

The email exchange offered a brief glimpse into what appeared to be a profitable friendship for both Mantz and Hillary Clinton.

For example, Mantz agreed to assist in steering his client’s funds toward one of Hillary Clinton’s pet projects: the U.S. pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. The State Department could not spend taxpayer money on the project, which many experts viewed as a diplomatic priority, so Hillary Clinton dispatched her aides to drum up funding from the same network of donors that funds the Clinton Foundation.

In June 2009, Kris Balderston, the aide charged with soliciting much of the funding for the pavilion, told Hillary Clinton that Mantz was “engaged” in the project, along with Pepsi, Microsoft and General Electric (all foundation donors).

In March 2010, Balderston informed his boss that Delos Living, a real estate company he described as “a Mantz client,” had kicked in $250,000 for the pavilion.

Within a year, Delos Living, whose board included Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, was tapped for a $5 million effort to build a soccer stadium in Haiti with the Clinton Global Initiative.

Mantz personally earned $280,000 for the “strategic counsel” services he provided Delos Living, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Unidentified job seeker

In April 2009, Band approached Abedin and Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, about hiring at the State Department an individual whose name was redacted.

Band forwarded an email in which the individual had expressed gratitude for an “eye-opening” trip to Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation claims to have done extensive work. The foundation official told Mills and Abedin that it was “important to take care of” the unnamed individual.

“Personnel has been sending him options,” Abedin replied.

Elizabeth Trudeau, a State Department spokeswoman, refused to reveal the identity of the individual Wednesday but argued her agency brings in many different people for many different reasons.

“The department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill sets,” Trudeau said.

The spokeswoman declined to say whether the person was put in a government position by Hillary Clinton’s team. If he was, it would not have been the first time a donor received a plush appointment.

In 2011, Hillary Clinton’s aides rushed a top secret security clearance for Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy Chicago businessman, so he could serve on the International Security Advisory Board.

When reporters asked for a copy of his resume, State Department officials panicked and stripped Fernando of his position for fear that his lack of credentials would come under scrutiny.

Consulting connections

Hillary Clinton asked Abedin in April 2009 whether she should reach out to a Pentagon official on behalf of Jackie Newmyer, a longtime friend and president of a consulting firm called Long Term Strategy Group.

Emails made public by the State Department suggest Newmyer secured meetings with Department of Defense officials by the following month about landing a contract for her firm.

In March, Newmyer had prepared for Hillary Clinton a proposal in the hopes of winning a consulting deal with the State Department.

Newmyer aimed to advise the administration on Iran, among other things, as the U.S. moved toward its controversial negotiations with the country.

*****

Not complete without George Soros has access and influence, right? Poor Ambassador Stevens never had the access or influence with Hillary Clinton, nor did any of those survivors or the dead from Benghazi.

Leaked e-mail shows Soros urged Clinton to intervene in Albania civil unrest

More leaked e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State prove that she was taking foreign policy advice from left-wing billionaire activist George Soros.

An e-mail provided by WikiLeaks showed Soros reaching out to Secretary Clinton over a foreign policy dispute in Albania.

“Dear Hillary,

“A serious situation has arisen in Albania which needs urgent attention at senior levels of the US government. You may know that an opposition demonstration in Tirana on Friday resulted in the deaths of three people and the destruction of property.

“There are serious concerns about further unrest connected to a counter-demonstration to be organized by the governing party on Wednesday and a follow-up event by the opposition two days later to memorialize the victims.

“The prospect of tens of thousands of people entering the streets in an already inflamed political environment bodes ill for the return of public order and the country’s fragile democratic process.”

Soros urges the then-Secretary of State to get the international community involved and pressure the Prime Minister to “forestall further demonstrations” and “tone down public pronouncements” as well appointing a senior European official to act as the mediator.

The left wing billionaire also gave Clinton a list of potential nominees to appoint as mediator: Carl Bildt, Martti Ahtisaari and Miroslav Lajcak.

The e-mail was sent from Soros’ aide to Richard Verma, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs who forwarded it to several of Clinton’s top aides including Huma Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and Philip Gordon. Sullivan forwarded it to Clinton.

Just three days after Clinton received the e-mail from Soros the EU ended up sending Soros’ suggested nominee Lajcak to mediate the civil unrest, the BBC reported.

Hillary Clinton George Soros email

Here it Comes, Another Sin Tax, Sodas

Ballot measures are slated for just about everyday and they range from the sublime to the ridiculous…have you paid any attention?

Just in case you need an overview:

Who’s backing 2016 ballot measures?

CPI:  National advocacy groups are gearing up to push state ballot measures in 2016 on topics ranging from the minimum wage to marijuana legalization. Below is a sampling of groups and their plans.

For a sampling some of the work and in sight has already been provided such that you should be on alert by going here.

Soda tax battle brewing at 2016 ballot box

June 8, 2016: Opponents of a proposed sugary drink tax demonstrate outside City Hall in Philadelphia. June 8, 2016: Opponents of a proposed sugary drink tax demonstrate outside City Hall in Philadelphia. (AP)

FNC: Local governments are always thirsty for revenue – and their taste for a soda tax keeps getting stronger, fueling a new battle this fall with America’s beverage industry.

Boosted in part by anti-soda warrior and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, proponents are trying to get a tax on sugary drinks approved at the ballot box in at least four more municipalities.

The initiatives mark a resurgence of sorts for the soda tax crusade. According to the American Beverage Association, voters have rejected 43 such measures in the past eight years. But in a major win for the movement, the Philadelphia City Council approved a 1.5-cents-per-ounce soda tax this past June.

Now, three California municipalities – San Francisco, Oakland and Albany – are slated to vote on a soda tax of a penny per ounce. Boulder, Colo., could double that, if voters OK a 2-cents-per-ounce tax. The initiatives, which have been approved for the ballot, target both sugary drinks and diet drinks.

Advocates cite health benefits in pushing the proposals. “The goal of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages is to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which science has proven to be directly correlated to detrimental health impacts such as diabetes, obesity and heart diseases,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Malia Cohen told FoxNews.com.

Bloomberg, often ridiculed for his efforts to ban the big gulp in his home city, spent $1.6 million to advocate for the passage of the Philadelphia tax and reportedly will be bankrolling efforts in San Francisco and Oakland as well.

But the American Beverage Association is staunchly opposed. ABA spokeswoman Lauren Kane said the Philadelphia tax is highly unpopular and shouldn’t be a model for any other city.

“This is a regressive tax, it raises the price of groceries and it’s discriminatory because it singles out a single product in the grocery cart,” Kane told FoxNews.com. “Once the government reaches into the grocery cart, everything else is vulnerable.”

The beverage association contends that soda consumption is at a 30-year low, yet obesity has continued to climb in recent years. Further, it notes West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee all imposed some soda tax, but rank among the most obese states in the nation.

“There is no single product that is responsible for obesity,” Kane said.

So far, only Berkeley, Calif., has enacted such a tax with voter approval, OK’ing a 1-cent-per-ounce tax in the 2014 election.

If a city the size of San Francisco adopts a tax at the ballot box, it could be a model for others, advocates hope.

“San Francisco has always been a pioneer in landmark legislation and I have no doubt the passage of a sugary beverage tax in San Francisco will encourage other municipalities to seriously consider implementing a similar tax,” said Cohen, who led the effort to have the measure placed on the ballot.

San Francisco would appear the most likely to adopt the measure since 56 percent of voters backed a proposed 2 percent tax increase in 2014. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass because the tax revenue was dedicated for a specific purpose. This year, it’s a proposed 1 percent tax that requires only a simple majority, since the revenue would be going to the general fund. If approved, the tax is projected to bring in $14.4 million annually – money supposedly to be used for health and nutrition programs.

Therein lies another concern. Kane said the revenue would be going into the general budget “with no strings attached” – so voters wouldn’t even know if the revenue would be used “to fight obesity.”

The ABA has a formidable foe in Bloomberg. He telegraphed his plans in a statement issued after the Philadelphia tax victory.

“In November, voters in three California cities will take up the issue, and it may also come before voters in Boulder, Colorado,” Bloomberg said. “When cities lead the way, solutions that were once considered non-starters can quickly catch fire and spread around the world. It would not be the first revolution Philadelphia has sparked.”

The issue even worked its way into presidential politics this year. After eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said she was “very supportive” of the Philadelphia proposal in April, her opponent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed for Philadelphia Magazine calling it a “regressive grocery tax that would disproportionately affect low-income and middle-class Americans.”

Cohen objects to the charge of a regressive tax.

“What this assumption ignores is the fact Type 2 Diabetes is a regressive disease,” Cohen told FoxNews.com. “At today’s rate, 50 percent of African American youth vs. 25 percent White youth will contract Type II Diabetes in their lifetime. This is not a coincidence and we must do something today to address this crisis.”

What you Need to Know About IDI and Why

This Company Has Built a Profile on Every American Adult

Every move you make. Every click you take. Every game you play. Every place you stay. They’ll be watching you.

Given the Debt, Venezuela is out of Money

How bad is it? Hey Bernie, Hillary….what say you? Could there be yet another insurgency coming into the United States of refugees?

A new decree issued by the Venezuelan government that forces workers to take agricultural jobs has been denounced as “forced labor” by human rights organizations and unions.

The Nicolás Maduro administration made the controversial regulation public on July 22, saying it was an attempt to curb the country’s widespread shortages of food.

The decree said the Venezuelan government, through the Labor Ministry, can arbitrarily force public and private companies to “lend” them  employees for farm work.

In a statement on July 29, Amnesty International called the new system “forced labor.” More here.

 

Venezuelans carrying groceries cross the Simon Bolivar bridge from Cucuta in Colombia back to San Antonio de Tachira in Venezuela, on July 17, 2016 (AFP Photo/George Castellanos)

Fleeing the country

Bogota (AFP) – Venezuela’s economic crisis has sent a huge but largely ignored wave of people into Colombia, and many more could be on the way, a senior UN refugee official said.

“It’s a silent arrival of a lot of people who are crossing the border and staying illegally on the Colombian side,” said Martin Gottwald, the United Nations Refugee Agency’s representative in Colombia.

No exact figures are available, but the number of Venezuelans fleeing to Colombia is already “quite large,” and Colombia should prepare itself for more, Gottwald told AFP in an interview.

“The avalanche is probably going to increase, with or without the reopening of the border,” he said.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro closed the countries’ border in August 2015 after an attack on an army patrol. He blamed right-wing paramilitaries from Colombia.

The leftist leader briefly reopened it last weekend to allow Venezuelans to stock up on food, medicine and other basic supplies amid severe shortages in Venezuela.

Gottwald said a sizeable number of Venezuelans who entered Colombia probably never returned.

Venezuela’s cash could run out ‘within a year’

Venezuela is running out of money and time.

CNN: The country’s central bank only has $11.9 billion in reserves, down sharply from $30 billion in 2011. A few large debt payments are coming due soon. Starting in October, Venezuela owes a total of $4.7 billion in a series of payments.

Venezuela is in the midst of a deep economic, political and humanitarian crisis. Its citizens are suffering from massive food shortages and hospitals lack basic medicine and equipment. Experts say Venezuela has prioritized paying the debt over dealing with the shortages.

“Within a year they’re going to run out of money,” says Russ Dallen, an expert on Venezuela’s debt and managing partner at Caracas Capital, an investing firm in Miami. Dallen pointed out that the country has been almost “suicidal” in its focus on making debt payments.

Related: Venezuela is selling oil for food to Jamaica

Experts’ guesses vary over exactly how much time Venezuela has before it runs out of cash. But all agree that at this rate, Venezuela does not have enough reserves to make all its payments for the next two years.

Much of Venezuela’s reserves are in gold, some of which the country has shipped to Switzerland this year to help repay its debts. As of May, Venezuela had $7.4 billion of its reserves in gold. However, it sent more gold in June, Swiss data shows.

“It doesn’t seem that Venezuela is going to be able to make all payments for next year,” says Mauro Roca, a Latin American economist at Goldman Sachs (GS). “The probability for default is much higher for next year than this year.”

Related: What went wrong in Venezuela

It is a dire situation and ironic for a country that sits on the world’s largest oil reserves. It’s true that oil prices have dropped dramatically and Venezuela hasn’t been able to earn enough money for its oil. But whatever money Venezuela earns from its oil is going to pay down its debts to lenders like China, bondholders, oil drilling companies and importers.

Even oil drilling companies are starting to cut business in Venezuela. For instance, in April, Schlumberger said it would reduce operations in Venezuela due to unpaid bills. It’s also one of the key reasons why the country’s oil production has plunged to 13-year lows.

Related: Why Venezuela’s oil production plunged to a 13-year low

According to Bank of America (BAC), Venezuela’s imports — which include food and medicine — declined between 40% and 45% in the first five months this year compared to the same time a year ago. (There isn’t reliable government data on imports).

“It’s a dramatic cut…they’re making a big effort to pay the debt,” says Sebastian Rondeau, an economist at Bank of America. He estimates that Venezuela can make debt payments until April of next year. “Then the second half of next year is going to be very complicated.”

There is still a chance that Venezuela could default this year. Venezuelan officials are currently working with bondholders of the country’s state-run oil company, PDVSA, to exchange short-term debt, which is due in October and November, with longer-term debt. If bondholders don’t agree, it could be a problem.

“It would just kick the can further down the road…we still think the government is highly likely to default over the next two years, if not in the next six months,” says Edward Glossop, an economist at Capital Economics, a research firm.

But China may be coming to Venezuela’s rescue. China is reportedly in talks to give Venezuela a one-year grace period on repaying its debt and only make interest payments. Since 2007, China has loaned Venezuela $65 billion and Venezuela has been slowly repaying that via oil shipments.

Last year, Venezuela shipped 579,000 barrels of oil per day on average to China, an audited financial statement from the country’s oil company shows. It appears China may now cut Venezuela some slack, so it can sell oil to bring in some money.

Regardless of a new debt deal or temporary relief from China, experts say Venezuela’s current path isn’t sustainable.

“It’s like saying how long can you hold your breath under water?” says Dallen.

Refugees Have Temporary Status in U.S. but not under DHS

The United States has been taking in refugees, migrants and asylees from Latin America and several dozen countries for decades. This is supposed to be a temporary condition but the truth is it has never been temporary.

Image result for manbij

Now with 45 million people from just 2015 displaced from their home countries around the world, there is a crisis that is hard to define much less solve. The United Nations is the lead organization that is under pressure to find solutions and world leaders are not in any kind of collective agreement. Meanwhile, there are people, mostly innocent that are suffering. This is a historical time, one that was in fact not only predictable but solvable if civil war, conflicts and terrorism was addressed long before it manifested.

At issue is the total cost of war where there is no end in sight but more, the cost of creating a viable and living long term solution for migrants to include education, healthcare, law enforcement, jobs, entitlements to list a few. No country is monetarily prepared for the future costs many yet to be known, studied or funded.

Related reading: Bodies found off coast of Libya as migrant toll climbs

The United States had every opportunity in 2011 to launch humanitarian action missions to offset refugee conditions especially as Islamic State was born, and predicted to become a global terror operation directly after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed. He is the original father of Islamic State…al Qaeda in Iraq.

Image result for zarqawi

As a result of the long war in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the complete damage to cities and towns where normal infrastructure has been destroyed, there is no viable location to go back to. There are no schools, hospitals, roads, buildings and commerce has stopped except for black markets and smuggling. Further, no countries are stepping up with funds to help rebuild or as many call it, nation building.

In summary, refugees are in fact a new permanent status for wherever they are located, including the United States.

Consequently, the United Nations is chartered with drafting a global solution with world leaders.

The first cut a the draft is found here.

In part from the NewYorkTimes: Refugees and migrants will be the biggest issue at the gathering of world leaders at the United Nations next month. President Obama plans to lead a meeting at the General Assembly in an effort to nudge countries to take in more refugees and contribute to countries that have taken them in for years.

The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, also plans to hold a meeting on the plight of refugees and migrants. The document under negotiation will be the centerpiece of his meeting.

While the draft text has no force of international law, every sentence has been argued and negotiated. The resulting language is sometimes so vague that it is likely to bring little comfort to the millions of men, women and children who are seeking safety and opportunity abroad.

Eritrea, for instance, recently complained that the many references to human rights in the document were “redundant.” (A United Nations committee earlier this year accused Eritrea of atrocities against its own citizens.)

Russia resisted a sentence that called for countries to share in the “burden” of taking in refugees. (Russia takes in very few, except lately, from parts of Ukraine.)

The United States suggested a phrase asserting that detention is “seldom” good for children. Activists for immigrants and refugees found that suggestion so appalling that they fired off a letter on Friday to President Obama. They argued that any international agreement should make clear that detention is “never in the best interests of children” and should commit to ending the practice. (The United States detains children who arrive from Mexico without legal papers.)

Amnesty International said in a statement over the weekend that “with some states trying to dilute the agreement to suit their own political agendas, we may end up with tentative half-measures that merely reinforce the status quo or even weaken existing protection.”

This draft agreement sets out a long list of principles, most already enshrined in existing laws. It says refugees deserve protection and should not be sent back to places where they could face war or persecution. It urges countries to allow refugees to work and to let their children attend school, though it stops short of saying refugees have a right to either jobs or schools.

It asserts that migration can be good for the world, which is wording that migrant-sending countries wanted. It also calls for countries to take back their citizens if they travel illegally and fail to get asylum, which is what migrant-receiving countries, especially in Europe, wanted.

An early draft had proposed a global compact to allocate where refugees could be permanently resettled, but that proposal failed. African and Latin American countries wanted to know why the compact was on refugees alone, according to diplomats involved in the negotiations. Why not also have a compact on the rights of migrants, they asked.

The latest draft sets a 2018 deadline for two compacts — one for refugees, a second for migrants.

The draft text also says nothing about the rights of the 40 million people who are displaced in their own countries, or about those who are leaving their homes because of climate change.