web analytics
September 30, 2016 / 27 Elul, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Clinton’

Trump Promising Netanyahu Jerusalem Embassy, Wants Advice on Building Fences

Sunday, September 25th, 2016

The Trump campaign press release following the meeting Sunday between Benjamin Netanyahu and the GOP presidential candidate stated that Trump told Netanyahu “a Trump administration would finally accept the long-standing Congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel.” The statement also said Trump “agreed that the military assistance provided to Israel and missile defense cooperation with Israel are an excellent investment for America,” and “there will be extraordinary strategic, technological, military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries,” should Trump be elected.

Trump emphasized that Israel is a “vital partner of the United States in the global war against radical Islamic terrorism.” According to the statement, the nuclear deal with Iran and ways to defeat ISIS were also discussed, as well as “Israel’s successful experience with a security fence that helped secure its borders.”

A short while before Sunday’s meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, the GOP presidential candidate and indefatigable tweeter tweeted: “Looking forward to my meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu in Trump Tower at 10:00 AM.” The meeting lasted an hour and twenty minutes behind closed doors, and the two did not speak to the press before or after.

The Prime Minister’s office released a laconic statement saying, “Netanyahu presented to Trump Israel’s positions on regional issues related to its security and discussed with him Israel’s efforts to achieve peace and stability in our region.” The PM’s office also said that Netanyahu thanked Trump for his friendship and support for Israel. The meeting included Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer and Trump’s son-in-law, Jewish businessman, investor and political operative Jared Kushner.

Netanyahu was scheduled to meet next with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who has already committed to inviting the Israeli PM to her White House as soon as she’s sworn in. Clinton is on the record as supporting the nuclear deal with Iran, but repeats her commitment to Israel’s security. In an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 TV, Clinton said “Trump should worry every Israeli, regardless of his positions on Israel.”

The two meetings were arranged when a senior Netanyahu official told reporters after his meeting with President Obama that he hadn’t been approached by either candidate for a meeting while he’s in the US, but should they invite him he’d be delighted to accept. A day later the invite came from the Trump campaign, followed by one from Hillary.

Monday night the world will follow with bated breath the first presidential debate between the two candidates. Many Israelis have reported setting their alarm clocks (or apps) to wake them up at 4 AM Tuesday, to watch the Monday at 9 PM match.

David Israel

Report: US Jewish Donors Mostly Avoid Trump, Favor Clinton

Thursday, September 22nd, 2016

The website FiveThirtyEight, whose Editor in Chief Nate Silver is possibly the most trusted odds maker in North America, published a report Wednesday suggesting Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is being abandoned by Jewish donors. To measure the relationship between Republicans and Jewish supporters, FiveThirtyEight took in data about campaign contributors, because there’s no other reliable way to measure Jewish voting, seeing as Jews make less than 2% of the US population, so that in a representative sample of 1,000 Americans, which is the accepted norm, you get about 20 people who say they are Jewish, and so pollster don’t really have enough to work with on Jewish voters, except for their donations. The AJC poll released last week claimed to offer reliable information on Jewish voter behavior, but one poll does not a reliable behavior reflect.

The FiveThirtyEight authors were hoping that Studying Jewish political contributors would offer a “useful signal,” because, while they may be an insignificant percentage of the population, Jews make up a much larger share of campaign contributors. So that if one discerned a significant swing in their donation behavior, one might assume the entire tribe is reacting in a similar fashion.

So they looked at every contribution of more than $200 to a federal candidate, in data provided by Catalist, a political data vendor which offers reasonably reliable estimates on whether a US voter is Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist or other. Jews are easier to verify this way, because they often have recognizable names and live in geographic clusters. Yes, Upper West Siders, we mean you, but we don’t mean you, former Senator William Cohen of Maine.

Now the results: in 2012, about 70% of Jewish money and Jewish votes (the total given was $160 million) went to President Obama. But in 2016, out of the $95 million given to presidential campaigns so far by Jewish donors, according to FiveThirtyEight, 84% went to Democrats, only 16% to Republicans, including all 16 losers in the primaries. Meanwhile, discounting the Jewish money donated to primary losers, 95% of all Jewish contributions went to Clinton.

But here is the result that’s the most devastating in terms of Jewish support for Trump: as a percentage of all contributors, Jews made up 18% of Obama’s donors and 7% of Romney’s donors in 2012. In 2016, 20% of Clinton’s donors are probably Jewish, only 3% of Trump’s donors have stood at Mount Sinai.

With such a dramatic shift in numbers, assuming they are reliable (having been following Nate Silver for a while, we believe they are), we can’t discount as “leftists” all the Jews who are sending their $200 donations to Clinton, because they probably aren’t. It’s safer to say that Donald Trump has yet to convince Jewish voters that they can trust him as leader of the free world. They barely trust Hillary, for that matter.

JNi.Media

Trump And Clinton Both Used The Word ‘Bombings’ – But Only One Of Them Was Excoriated For It

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was sharply critical of her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump, for having described the Saturday explosions in New York City and New Jersey as “bombings” shortly after their occurrence.

Soon after his comments, Mrs. Clinton was asked by a reporter whether Mr. Trump had “jumped the gun” in labeling the explosion a bombing before investigators came up with more information. She said the reaction was emblematic of Mr. Trump’s rashness and lack of capacity for calm deliberation, which is why he is unsuited to be president of the United States. Mrs. Clinton’s remarks in this regard are disturbing, to say the least.

First, distinguishing between a “bomb” and other means setting off an explosion seems at best an irrelevant quibble. Especially in light of the significance that there was a confirmed bombing detonated hours earlier that day in Seaside Park, N.J., why would someone who is seeking to be the leader of the free world obsess on a fine verbal distinction? Indeed, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “bomb” as “a device that is designed to explode in order to injure or kill people or to damage or destroy property.” So one could rightly wonder what information Mr. Trump was missing when he spoke.

But there is something more unsettling. It seems that Mrs. Clinton referred to the episodes as “bombings” moments before Mr. Trump did. Thus, not only did she dissemble but she was aided and abetted by a CNN reporter who edited out her use of the “bomb” term.

This is part of what Mrs. Clinton told several reporters on Saturday night:

Mrs. Clinton: I’ve been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey, and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We’ve been in touch with various officials, including the mayor’s office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I’ll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts.Reporter: Secretary Clinton, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump, immediately upon taking the stage tonight, called the explosion in New York a “bomb”…?

Mrs. Clinton: Well I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. That’s why it’s critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to determine what did happen. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.

Yet CNN’s Jake Tapper said this in an interview with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:

[Mr. Trump] is being criticized for talking about the New York bomb before local officials or law enforcement had a chance to do so. He told the Colorado Springs crowd that “a bomb went off in New York, and nobody knows exactly what’s going on” – that’s really just a few minutes after the incident. And his opponent tried to draw a contrast. She waited hours later, until local officials spoke and then she said this:Clinton (clip): I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.

Incredibly, Mr. Tapper, in his attempt to draw a distinction between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton on the issue, failed to include Mrs. Clinton’s use of the term “bombings.” And Mr. Tapper’s edited version of Mrs. Clinton’s comments got the most play in the media.

This episode says a lot about how far Mrs. Clinton is willing to go to make political points and how far some in the media are willing to go to assist her.

Editorial Board

Bill Clinton Inquired about Shimon Peres’ Condition

Wednesday, September 14th, 2016

Former US President Bill Clinton called on Tuesday to inquire about the health of former Israeli President Shimon Peres. Peres is at Sheba Medical Center, where he remains in serious but stable condition as of Wednesday morning, having suffered a severe stroke Tuesday night, according to Sheba Director Yitzhak Kreiss.

President Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak at Shimon Peres’ birthday celebration in Israel on June 17, 2013. The fee was paid by the Jewish National Fund, which Ha’aretz at the time wrote was a “cause for embarrassment.”

At the 90th birthday celebration, Clinton said, “It was my great honor to be here when President Peres celebrated his 80th birth day, I am now here at his 90th birthday. He is clearly the world’s greatest visionary, one of the reasons he lived this long is he always thinks of the future not the past, he is always thinking about tomorrow. Just tonight he promised me that he would attend my 80th birthday, that he would attend my 90th birthday, that he would speak at my funeral.”

“The rest of you are here celebrating his infinite wisdom, I came to get his diet,” Clinton quipped.

David Israel

Netanyahu Representative in DC to Negotiate $38 Billion Aid Deal

Tuesday, September 13th, 2016

Brigadier General Yaakov Nagel, Israel’s acting National Security Council, arrived in Washington DC on Tuesday to meet with President Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice, in preparations for signing a new US military aid package. The new US aid deal, which the two governments have been negotiating since November 2015, awards Israel $38 billion over 10 years.

Nagel met with US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro to work out the final details before leaving for Washington — including the text of the official announcements. The new aid package is expected to average $3.8 billion a year, a considerable cut from Netanyahu’s initial request for $4.5 billion. The deal is also contingent on Israel agreeing not to approach Congress for additional funds, as in the case of the Iron Dome missile defense system, which Congress has been paying for outside the annual aid package. Now an estimated $5 billion out of the package will be spent over 10 years on missile defense development.

In other words, the new aid package is only adding $300 million to the previous amount. To remind you, the sum of $3 billion annually was set during the Camp David peace negotiations with Egypt, as compensation to Israel for giving up the Sinai peninsula as a military asset. That amount has never been raised in close to 40 years, even though the current value of that annual package would have been $10.48 billion.

The critical disagreement between the two sides over the current deal has been whether or not Israel could continue to invest a percentage of the aid package in Israeli made military products. The Obama Administration wanted the entire amount to stay in US corporations, which would have been devastating to Israeli manufacturers and to the IDF. A short episode during the 2014 Gaza War, in which the Obama Administration stopped shipping to Israel all defense items, including Hellfire missiles, served as a memorable lesson to the Israeli security apparatus about the need to increase its self-reliance.

The new deal ended up adding six years in which Israel can continue to spend as much as 26% of the US aid money on Israeli made products, as well as another 13% for fuel purchases. By the seventh year, or halfway into Clinton’s or Trump’s second term, the Israeli military industrial complex would have to quit US aid cold turkey — Unless Netanyahu or his successor is able to renegotiate that part — depending on who is in the White House and who controls Congress at the time.

David Israel

Dennis Ross: If Elected, Clinton Should Seek MORE Israeli Concessions

Tuesday, September 13th, 2016

{Originally posted to the JNS website}

If Hillary Clinton is elected U.S. president, she should launch a behind the scenes initiative to bring about changes in Israel’s policies, according to former Clinton adviser and U.S. Mideast envoy Dennis Ross.

Ross’s remarks came during a panel discussion at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service on Thursday.

Ross said that “even though negotiations with the Palestinian Authority won’t work now,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should take steps of his own. “He should, at a minimum, announce an official policy that there will be no further Israeli construction east of the security barrier,” Ross said.

Numerous Israeli settlements would be affected by such a policy, including the communities in the Jordan Valley. Ross said such unilateral concessions would be consistent with “the traditional Zionist way of shaping your own destiny.”

The public disputes between Israel and the Obama administration were counter-productive, the former peace process negotiator said. “So if the more traditional of the two presidential candidates is elected, she should not undertake a big public initiative, but instead there should be some effort behind the scenes,” he added.

Ross charged that Netanyahu “does not want to make the difficult choice between his domestic interests and what the international community expects.” But, he emphasized, Netanyahu’s past concessions to the Palestinian Authority indicated that “if you could create the circumstances that would force him to make that historic choice, I think he would.” Twice the former ambassador said the Israelis need to realize if they want peace, “they can’t get it on the cheap.”

Ross sparked a moment of controversy when he said that President Obama “considers himself a genuine friend of Israel–the kind of friend who doesn’t let his friend drive drunk.”

Ross’s apparent agreement with the comparison of Netanyahu to a drunk driver provoked a strong response from fellow panelist Elliot Abrams, a former assistant secretary of state and former President George W. Bush’s former deputy national security adviser.

Abrams said senior White House aides traditionally step in to help patch relations when the president does not get along with a foreign leader. With Netanyahu, “the White House staff has made things worse,” he asserted.

Abrams singled out National Security Adviser Susan Rice as harming relations between the U.S. and Israel. He also pointed out that the unnamed White House official, who last year used an obscenity to characterize Netanyahu, “did it deliberately, for publication, and yet was never punished for that ugly remark.” Abrams added, “If the president and his national security adviser wanted such talk to stop, it would have.”

Ross responded that “things like that didn’t happen under Tom Donilon, with whom I worked.” Donilon, Rice’s predecessor, served from October 2010 to June 2013. Several audience members pointed out afterwards there were a number of unpleasant incidents during Donilon’s time, including Obama’s open mic moment when he complained that he “has to deal with [Netanyahu] every day,” and Hillary Clinton’s assertion, at the 2012 Saban Forum, that Israel has a “lack of empathy” for “the pain of an oppressed people.”

Ross also seemed to blame Netanyahu for some of the problems enforcing the terms of the Iranian nuclear agreement. “Instead of holding Iran’s feet to the fire, [the administration] just comes up with excuses for Iran’s actions,” he said. “More could have been accomplished if Netanyahu had pressed for the creation of a Joint Implementation Committee, as I proposed.”

Israeli historian Benny Morris and former Haaretz correspondent Natasha Mozgovaya also took part in the panel, which was moderated by Robert J. Lieber, Georgetown University professor of government and international affairs.

 

Dr. Rafael Medoff

NY State Attorney General Let Clinton Foundation Hide Foreign Donors

Monday, September 12th, 2016

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is letting the Clinton Family foundation break the law. According to NY State Law, Schneiderman is supposed to make the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Health Access Initiative (and all charities) publicly disclose the names of foreign governments and the millions they donate each year to the charities but he’s not doing it.

Law Newz reports that New York’s charity law clearly states: “Organizations that received a contribution or grant from a government agency during the reporting period shall include the name of each agency from which contributions were received and the amount of each contribution.”

This type of information about the Clinton Foundation may disclose whether the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton charities also had special access to Hillary Clinton when she was ran State.

Funny thing is that with Schneiderman as the AG, NY has a reputation of requiring “more transparency from non-profits operating within its borders than many other regulators.”  Perhaps the AG is allowing the Clinton Foundation avoid transparency because Schneiderman is also a member of Clinton’s “leadership council” in New York. After all, this AG’s actions suggest that he lives by the motto “politics first.”

A Scripps Washington Bureau review of tax returns and regulatory filings found that year after year the Clinton charities have ignored New York law and related instructions. However, the office of Attorney General Schneiderman, a Democrat whom Hillary Clinton named to her campaign’s “leadership council” in New York, did not respond to Scripps’ questions about the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which has never publicly disclosed in New York filings the identity of its foreign government contributors or the amounts they give each year. Scripps also discovered CHAI did not report hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign government donations to the state.

However, Schneiderman’s office said it considers the Clinton Foundation, which is a separate charity, “in step” with state rules.

“He’s not doing his job in that case,” said David Nelson, an attorney and former partner at the accounting firm of Ernst & Young who served on the regulations and legislation committee of the Council On Foundations, the philanthropy industry’s equivalent of the American Bar Association.

In 2009, Secretary Clinton’s first year heading the State Department, the Clinton Foundation disclosed to New York only a lump sum of $122 million in foreign government donations, listing the amount on a required form that directs all charities to “list each government contribution (grant) separately.” The foundation continued to provide the lump sum disclosures for foreign governments in every year that followed.

Nelson said, “The Clinton Foundation cannot say they are in compliance with New York regulations.”

Schneiderman’s own office issued detailed instructions for all charities warning them to make sure the total amount of contributions by government disclosed to the state is equal to what the charities report to the IRS. From 2010-2014 Schneiderman allowed the Clintons to ignore his rule, allowing Bubba and Hillary to hide $225 million in foreign government donations.

Just last week, on August 29th  Schneiderman won a victory in federal court against the right-leaning Citizens United forcing them disclose key information about its major donors. Following the decision Schneiderman bragged:

 

“Today’s decision is a victory for common sense oversight of New York’s vast nonprofit sector. New Yorkers deserve to know their donations are protected against fraud and abuse, and today the court protected that right.”
Schneiderman meant every word of the above, but omitted the part that he only enforces transparency laws against conservative organizations.  After all, the Clinton Foundation’s been getting off scot-free.

Schneiderman’s also attacks conservatives in other ways. For example, with former VP Al Gore he formed a group called “AGs United for Clean Power.” This Schneiderman-led organization’s mission is to come up with ways to prosecute people, organizations, and companies who are climate skeptics. The politically oriented prosecutor convinced 25 other progressive Attorneys General from 25 states, territories, cities and counties to join his assault on free speech (perhaps, these attorneys skipped their law school constitutional law classes when the topic was the 1st Amendment).

Another example of Schneiderman’s equal justice for all liberals only, is his vendetta against former AIG head Maurice “Hank” Greenberg (yes he got the nickname in the Army because of the Hall-of-Fame MLB star).  For over a decade, the New York State AG’s office has stalked Mr. Greenberg. The legal action was started by liberal New York Attorney General and famous client #9 Eliot Spitzer, but was kept alive by the liberal bloodsuckers who succeeded him. The latest of these political vampires is Eric T. Schneiderman (by the way the reports that the “T” stands for “tough shit I am going to make stuff up and screw you anyway” are not true).

Originally there were nine civil charges filed against Mr. Greenberg. Right off the bat seven of the civil charges were laughed out of court. It was revealed that Schneiderman sat on potentially exculpatory evidence in their civil lawsuit (something my lawyer friends tell me is a bad thing). Actually the witness’s statements debunk the remaining two civil charges.

In March 2015 a Wall Street Journal editorial said, “This Spitzer/Schneiderman production is a political case to win headlines and should be dismissed as a first step toward reform of the AG’s office.”

In fact Eric “no justice for conservatives”  Schneiderman, has already conceded that money damages are off the table even if he manages to prevail on the remaining two claims – which he can’t.

The real reason Mr. Greenberg is being pursued is that he committed an immoral act for someone who lives in the People’s Republic of New York he dares to spend millions of his dollars supporting conservative candidates. To Schneiderman that’s a terrible offense, one worth him using his supposedly non-political office to pursue his personal political agenda.

It’s progressives like Schneiderman who label people by their income or their politics. That’s why he allows Bubba and Hillary Clinton off the hook and persecutes Greenberg. Those of us who are ruled by morality instead of politics evaluate people by their character and  their actions. Hank Greenberg has proven he is a man with a big heart and a concern for people. As my friend Kurt Schlichter wrote:

He lied about his age to enlist as a soldier in World War II and marched through Europe with Patton’s Third Army, where he saw firsthand the bloody carnage of National Socialism [during his WWII service he not only saw horrors as he rushed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day but participated in the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps]. Later, he returned to active duty to fight in Korea. He earned the Bronze Star and was recently awarded the French Legion of Honor for his service on D-Day. Back home, Greenberg turned AIG into a global giant but, mindful of the chaos he witnessed firsthand as a young man, he devoted significant time and effort to philanthropy and to promoting peaceful trade and international relations to help avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Based on his actions and character, Eric T. Schneiderman does not believe that justice is blind.  Rather it seems he believes justice is his tool to score political points. In NY State progressives running for president don’t need to follow the law. However a war hero who has donated his time as well as money to a full range of medical and cultural charities is a target– not because he committed some violation, but because he donated to the wrong politicians.

 

 

Jeff Dunetz

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/the-lid-jeffdunetz/ny-state-attorney-general-let-clinton-foundation-hide-foreign-donors/2016/09/12/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: