Connect with us

Democrats

3 reasons the latest Clinton Foundation investigation will result in convictions

Published

on

3 reasons the latest Clinton Foundation investigation will result in convictions

Here we go again. The FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation to determine if “donations” were used to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by lining the Clintons’ pockets through “speaking fees,” among other crimes. This time, things are going to be different.

First, the brief background:

Clinton Foundation under investigation again

http://noqreport.com/2018/01/05/clinton-foundation-investigation/The FBI has launched a fresh investigation into the activities of the Clinton Foundation, particularly during the time when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. They want to know if she was influenced by contributions made to her charitable fund in a way that allowed donors to manipulate policy influenced by the State Department or other spheres of influence.

Little Rock’s FBI agents are leading the investigation. The Clinton Foundation was started in Little Rock in 1997.

Teflon-coated may be the best way to describe the Clintons who have allegedly participated in multiple major criminal activities for decades, yet nothing has ever stuck. That leads us to the first of three reasons the DOJ is going to convict someone at the Clinton Foundation based upon this investigation…

Something has to stick eventually

When you’ve been engaged in criminal activities for as long as the Clintons have allegedly been, you learn to sidestep most of the landmines. Most. As they demonstrated with the email server debacle, they aren’t flawless.

The other thing successful criminal activities breeds is complacency. When you keep getting away with things, you get comfortable. They’ve maintained their discipline through the decades, but the Clinton Foundation is not the Arkansas or U.S. government. There are paper trails with many people involved. Trying to keep it airtight is a futile effort. Their best hope was for either someone like James Comey to run cover for them indefinitely. Their second best hope was the spin machine the DNC and mainstream media offers. Comey is gone and the DOJ is now under a Republican President, which means they can now offer…

Fodder for the masses

Many, particularly Clinton-hating Republicans, have grown antsy over the years. They’ve been promised over and over again that the Clintons would eventually get what’s coming to them, but eventually is seeming like never as the Clintons are now in their 70s.

This is just the ticket to quench their appetite. It won’t make it all the way up to the top; Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea are safe. However, there will be more corruption exposed that will lead to an outcry for justice. While Clinton-haters won’t be given the big prize, they’ll get the consolation prize of seeing one or more people high up in the Clinton organization arrested, tried, and convicted. The small amount of time that person or those persons end up serving in jail is likely going to infuriate people, but at least there was a conviction, right?

They are almost certainly guilty

Let’s not bypass the obvious. Based upon what’s publicly known about the way the Clinton Foundation operated, one could make a very strong case. Add to that whatever they discover in the investigation and we’ll have someone to make that strong case against.

Even the Clintons cannot get away with the perception of favors being sold out of the State Department, particularly with Uranium One having such a strong footprint all over the Clinton Foundation’s books.

Will we see any of the Clintons in jail any time soon? Probably not. Will someone close to them get thrown to the wolves? For once, it’s finally likely. Justice may not get fully served, but at least we’ll get to taste the appetizers and maybe even a salad.

Continue Reading
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. ed

    January 5, 2018 at 3:48 pm

    Seems like ALL politicians and public personalities from NYC (Where the Clintons have taken up their post-WH residence) are dirty, sleazy, smarmy and corrupt.

    Schumer, Barney Franks, Weiner, Huma, Clintons, Trump, all Major Media with HQ & primary studios in NYC, DeBlasio, Bloomberg – the list just goes on and on….

    Maybe it’s something in the water supply….

    The fact that so many denizens of NYC get away with their corruption, scams and sleaze (and are vouched for by the rest of the NYC denizens just shows the massive collusion and / epidemic of poor judgement and anti-American sentiment that is flooding from that town into Wash DC.

    We need to start electing politicians to office that do NOT come from NYC with NYC values. We also need to start upporting new media that is NOT based in NYC (thus promoting and projecting their NYC values through the bias of their reporting.

  2. TheRight1961

    January 6, 2018 at 8:04 pm

    The thing about this kind of corruption is that nothing need be communicated between the donor and the corrupt official. The donation itself is the communication. So let’s say you are an entity that has business before the State Department. You make a big contribution to the Clinton Foundation, and/or pay Bill or Hillary big bucks for a speech. The entities that have been discussed are very large organizations, and can afford to put out some cash without any commitment from the corrupt official. It’s just spreading around some money to the people that you hope will decide in your favor in the matter that is before the government agency (in this case the State Department). You might do something to make sure that Hillary is aware of the donation, but that can easily be done without any incriminating communication. Then you just wait. Hillary sees the donation, and if she is corrupt she may let it affect her decision. If she decides in favor of big donors very often, then others see it and decide it may be worth a try. But NOTHING need ever be said or communicated in any way. There need not even be a “wink and a nod”.

    So I would be inclined to think there may not be any evidence to find. Even if the Clintons are as corrupt as they somtimes appear to be, there may be no evidence, and that may go for lesser targets of the investigation as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

As USC sex abuse scandal grows to 500 complaints, #MeToo fixates on the GOP

Published

on

As USC sex abuse scandal grows to 500 complaints MeToo fixates on the GOP

The #MeToo movement was supposed to be about protecting and empowering women. Its origins were righteous and it delivered results. No, those origins weren’t with Alyssa Milano, though she’s become the face of the modern version of the movement. The original #MeToo movement started a decade ago. It wasn’t a hashtag. It advocated for victims.

Today’s #MeToo movement is one part women’s advocacy, nine parts political commentary against conservatives. The far left has appropriated the movement to no longer be about sexual misconduct by individuals. Instead, it’s about stopping Republicans in the upcoming election. But don’t take my word for it.

Milano, who helped bring Hollywood into the mix and did some great things a year ago to get the #MeToo movement ramped up for women, has tried to separate her #MeToo leadership role from her push for Democrats in the upcoming midterm election. These efforts have proven to be impossible. With the elections so close, she has leaned towards the latter. She hasn’t abandoned #MeToo by any means, but it’s clear her passion is for the political side of her agenda.

As such, the intermingling was inevitable even if it wasn’t intentional.

Here’s the problem. #MeToo needs her a heck of a lot more than the Democrats do. Political candidates have the resources and voice to get their message out. Milano’s reach is a drop in the bucket on the political front. For the #MeToo movement, her voice can actually make a difference, raise awareness, and inspire women to act.

Her desire to influence a few political races has drawn her away from a true calling that actually needs her voice.

You won’t see her talking about the massive USC sexual abuse incidents that have affected literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of impressionable women for decades.

Nearly 100 additional women sue USC over gynecologist’s alleged sexual misconduct

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nearly-100-additional-women-sue-usc-over-gynecologists-alleged-sexual-misconductMore than a dozen women appeared at a news conference Thursday to announce the new lawsuits on behalf of 93 women against the university, bringing the total number of accusations against Tyndall to about 500 current and former students.

“I am part of an accidental sisterhood of hundreds of women because the university we love betrayed our trust,” said Dana Loewy, who alleged that Dr. George Tyndall assaulted her during an examination in 1993.

Perhaps the worst part about Milano’s actions is that she willfully ignores abuse accusations made against Democrats. Why isn’t she calling for people to believe Sherrod Brown’s accuser? Where are the Tweets condemning Keith Ellison?

Why hasn’t she said a word about Katie Brennan?

Why isn’t Katie Brennan’s #MeToo accusation getting national attention?

http://noqreport.com/2018/10/15/isnt-katie-brennans-metoo-accusation-getting-national-attention/It’s the type of story that should have received national attention immediately. It was sourced by a respected major news outlet, the Wall Street Journal. Both the accuser and the accused are high-ranking public official in New Jersey’s government. The accused stepped down two weeks ago when approached by WSJ for comment. Katie Brennan’s story is a major newsworthy scandal.

As of Monday morning, a day after the story officially broke and four days after it was leaked to other major news outlets, both mainstream media and the #MeToo movement are essentially silent.

Being a good Democrat has taken Milano’s focus away from the #MeToo movement. She has helped turn it into a political tool at the expense of victims whose voices are not being heard. Sadly, politicians will use her while victims slip by silently.

Politicians have turned the #MeToo movement and Alyssa Milano into their proxies. They justify it by claiming they’ll be better for women in the long run. Sadly, the real movement is suffering because people like Milano bought their sales pitch.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Why won’t Hillary Clinton go away?

Published

on

Why wont Hillary Clinton go away

There’s a difference between persistence and an inability to take a hint. Former Democratic darling Hillary Clinton’s persistence is becoming an annoyance for the left because she won’t take the hint. Most Democrats don’t want her around but they’re unwilling to flatly say, “Go away.”

Or, perhaps they are telling her this but enough enablers are near her filling her head with false hope.

Or, maybe she’s so emotionally lost after years of the rigors of Washington DC that delusions are preventing her from accepting her fate as a two-time presidential loser whose only electoral accomplishment was winning a Senate seat in deep-blue New York. Lest we forget, her only two other “accomplishments” were being married to a President and being selected by another President to be Secretary of State.

We can speculate about her motivations, but whatever they truly are, they’re enough to put her at “not zero” for another presidential run.

A former Hillary Clinton adviser says there’s a chance she will run in 2020

https://theweek.com/speedreads/802785/former-hillary-clinton-adviser-says-theres-chance-run-2020Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party’s best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has “anywhere near a base of 32 million people,” especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn’t dismiss her as a failed candidate because she’s “smarter” and “tougher” than most, and she “could raise money easier than most.”

But it doesn’t sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are “not zero.”

The left isn’t taking the news too well. Reactions on Twitter have been lukewarm at best while often getting abusive. No need to post the Tweets here. You can already guess what they’re saying.

I think I speak for Republicans across the country who would relish the thought of taking on Clinton once again. There are some potential candidates who look strong going into 2020. She’s not one of them. If she can manage to steal the nomination again, it would be a huge win for the President.

I sometimes feel sorry for Hillary Clinton, but usually I’m just amused. She’ll always remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Continue Reading

Democrats

As Bernie Sanders fades, 3 leftists (quietly) vie to pick up his mantle

Published

on

As Bernie Sanders fades 3 leftists quietly vie to pick up his mantle

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) just turned 77-years-old last month. The Democratic-Socialist movement, which he essentially brought into the mainstream and helped make popular following his 2016 presidential campaign, is made up of young, enthusiastic leftists. They need new leadership. Bernie can’t be that guy.

Two-years removed from his rise to prominence, his people are already searching for successors. Nobody’s saying it openly and Sanders still enjoys a great deal of support, but his inability to endorse leftists into primary victories showed he still couldn’t beat the Democratic establishment even after their stunning 2016 loss. But the real nail in Bernie’s presidential coffin was not endorsing soon-to-be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He picked losers and failed to recognize a surprise winner.

It should come as no surprise that Ocasio-Cortez is unwilling to endorse him for a 2020 presidential run.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t endorsing Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid

https://nypost.com/2018/10/18/ocasio-cortez-isnt-endorsing-bernie-sanders-2020-bid/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow“She’ll see what the field looks like,” Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, told Politico. “She’s focused on 2018, [Bernie’s] focused on 2018. We’re all focused on 2018.”

Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her stunning primary defeat in June of longtime Queens political boss Rep. Joe Crowley.

Nobody on the left seems willing to flatly admit what most of them already know. Sanders is nothing more than a symbol now. He’s the ideological leader of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, much like Barry Goldwater was for the conservative wing of the Republican party. He lit the fire. Now it’s time for his successors to step up. Who will it be?

Before we discuss who’s going to be the next Bernie Sanders, let’s talk about who isn’t. Despite the far left getting all the buzz, the Democratic establishment of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama (sorry leftists, yes, he was and is part of the Democratic establishment) still holds sway on the direction of the party. They’re more than willing to tap into the excitement of the progressive movement and get Democratic Socialists to vote for Democratic mainstream candidates, but they’re smart enough to recognize if the far-left gets their way, the party and probably the nation will crumble.

These establishment types will not pick up Bernie’s mantle:

  • Joe Biden – He’s the current frontrunner, but I seriously doubt he’ll run. Why would he? He doesn’t really want to be President and would be 80 by the time his first term came to a close. Regardless, he’s more moderate that Clinton and will not be the next Bernie.
  • Elizabeth Warren – Despite wanting to be the next Bernie and having the progressive credentials to match his far-leftist rhetoric, her star is already fading fast. Democrats and mainstream media are trying to pretend like her DNA debacle never happened, but her competitors will be sure to remind the world of her horrible judgment. Wanting it and being accepted by the fragile far-left are two different things. They won’t turn on her as a Senator but they won’t let her be Bernie.
  • Beto O’Rourke – His star-power will fade when he loses to Ted Cruz. If he’s somehow able to win, then we’ll have to watch what he does in the first year of his term as Senator to see if he can be the guy. As of now, he’s a MSNBC contributor in the making following his loss.
  • Michael Bloomberg – A rich old white guy might have brought the socialist movement into the spotlight, but a super-rich old white guy can’t pick up the mantle.
  • Michael Avenatti – LOL. No.
  • Eric Holder – If anyone on this list could sneak into the Democratic Socialist camp, it’s Holder. He is progressive enough and speaks the language of socialism, but he’s also closely tied to the establishment.

With those non-Bernies out of the way, let’s look at the three most likely candidates to lead the far-left in 2020. You’ll notice they’re all Senators, a la Barack Obama’s path. I don’t see a governor or mayor who has a legitimate chance of being a socialist hero. Andrew Cuomo and Eric Garcetti are interesting prospects, but not high enough on the radar at this time.

That leaves private citizens, some of whom could be the next Bernie if they choose to throw their names in the hat. Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney stand out, but we won’t put them on this list until they actually get political.

One thing to note is that they’ll all be cozy with Sanders until the time is right. None of them have the street credibility they’ll need to challenge Sanders directly until he’s ready to embrace one or more of them on his own. Quietly, they’ll be pitching him on why they’re the right person to continue what he started. They might even offer him a nice cabinet position like Treasury Secretary in exchange for his coveted endorsement.

The next Bernie will likely be one of these three Senators:

Kamala Harris

The California Senator is the obvious choice. She has built up the most progressive voting record in her short time on Capitol Hill and definitely talks the talk of socialism.

If any socialist has a real shot at the White House, it’s Harris.

Kirsten Gillibrand

The funny part about Gillibrand is that she’s been considered a moderate in the past. Some even called her a “conservative Democrat” when she was in the House because she represented a red district of New York. Once she became a Senator, her true colors came out.

Deep down, Gillibrand is among the most socialist Senators there is. Her voting record is actually to the left of Sanders, according to Progressive Punch. She is likable by the far left while still holding sway over moderates. If her name-recognition increases in the next year, she could be a real contender.

Cory Booker

Spartacus has problems with his image at times, but there’s no doubt he could easily pick up Bernie’s mantle. He’s currently stuck in the middle trying to be everything to every progressive up and down the scale, but when push comes to shove he can be the socialist he wants to be.

Whether or not he picks up Bernie’s mantle will be determined by how well the previous two listed socialists do. If he’s ahead of them and his primary competitors are to his right, then he’ll drift towards the center knowing he’ll end up with Bernie’s people anyway. If he’s running against stiff competition from Gillibrand and/or Harris, he’ll try to lurch to their left to steal their thunder.

2020 is a make-or-break election for socialists. If they fail to get their choice as the nominee for a second straight presidential election, it could be enough to bury their horrible ideology as fringe leftist junk. Then again, it could make them double down.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report