Posted on 10/31/2016 7:35:50 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup
The Hillary Clinton email scandal can seem complicated. But its easy to understand. Here is the full story:
Hillary Clinton set up a private email server, and a private email network for herself and her family and Abedin. Doing so could prevent her emails from being accessible to the federal government, not to mention Congress.
The private network allowed Clinton, Abedin, and aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan to swap emails with the Clinton Foundation, various world leaders, and Doug Bands global consulting firm Teneo Holdings, where Abedin also worked during her time at the State Department. This would have been problematic, considering Clintons 2009 ethics agreement, leaked on Cryptome, in which she vowed not to coordinate with the Clinton Foundation.............(read more)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Headline of the Day Poll
Which best describes the FBI’s announcement of their investigation into Hillary’s email?
Director Comey was obliged to tell Congress
Director Comey took sides in the election
Poll Location: http://www.headlineoftheday.com/#ixzz4OhSne140
FR POSTED: Hillary hadnt even finished unpacking her things in her new office at the State Department after Barack Obama appointed her when a situation was dumped in her lap. The Swiss government was concerned that the IRS was suing UBS AG one of the biggest banks in Switzerland to get them to reveal the identities of tens of thousands of clients. (Wall Street Journal)
If the case proceeded, Switzerlands largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.
Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlementan unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.
Well, the Swiss may have gotten off pretty easy, but at least a compromise had been reached, right? Job well done, Mrs. Clinton. Peace is maintained between the US and an influential ally. And now we can all go about our business. Except for one disturbing aspect of the story which cropped up in the following months.
From that point on, UBSs engagement with the Clinton familys charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.
The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.
The WSJ is quick to point out that there is no evidence of any link between these events, but at what point does coincidence become too much to ignore? Youre talking about one of the richest, most powerful financial entities on the planet who, up until Clinton took over at state, had given a grand total of $60K to the foundation. (An amount which likely fell well short of how much USB spent on coffee and donuts during the same period.) And then, in a matter of weeks, the cash spigots opened up and increased tenfold over the next six years.
Tens of millions in loans to efforts supported by the foundation were in addition to a direct set of cash deposits into Bill Clintons pocket totally $1.5M not the foundations coffers. And if I remember correctly, Bill and Hill were still filing their taxes jointly at the time, werent they?
The Swiss bank got a truly sweet deal and millions of dollars flowed immediately thereafter into the accounts of both the Clintons and their foundation. So we are asked to accept that there no causal relationship between these two sets of data points. We cant prove that there is absent some secret recording turning up, but at what point can the media say that this beggars belief and the empress has no clothes?
How legally binding is/was this agreement? For the Clinton's not even a sworn oath is "legally binding." Frankly, I don't even think it was legal to make such an agreement in the first place. Was the public privy to this arrangement? Of course not.
Were any of the accounts that Swiss turned over politicians of any persuasion or were they serfs?
Don’t know.
Violation of government conflict of interest laws for public officials are felonies - yeah I know - what difference does it make at this point.
Bump!
And it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
“Who’s on first, What’s on second, I don’t Know is on third...’’
Excellent summary by Brietbart, but of course it’s only part of the overall story.
The first investigation itself was corrupted by VA governor Terry McAuliffe’s PAC’s 500,000 dollar contribution to the FBI’s #3 man’s (now #2, Andrew McCabe) wife’s political campaign for Virginia state senate. Another quid pro quo for cooperation in stiffing the FBI email investigation, hence the recommendation for Hillary to escape charges.
And guess who’s in charge of the new investigation? You got it, Andrew McCabe. Only this time we’ll never see just how damaging those 650,000 emails are unless investigators release them, especially since the DOJ is trying to squelch the investigation — or unless somehow they are/were obtained by a third party that exposes them.
Lots of stoopids out there that will STILL vote for the Clinton Crime syndicate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.