Monday 24th of September 2018

a nice kid... still a nice kid...


God help us if Chelsea runs for office...


Still, it’s easy to see why some in the party may, on paper, see 36-year-old Chelsea as their next young star: Hyper-educated, married mother of two, scandal-free, torchbearer for a Democratic dynasty. But the Dems should consider how a Chelsea candidacy would play to the still-bruised Sanders cohort. Last Monday, the Washington Times reported that some attendees at a DNC forum in Baltimore were virulently “Never Chelsea.”

“Chelsea needs to go away,” 49-year-old Guinevere Boyd said. “She has nothing to offer. She has said some horrible, clueless things about progressives and progressive issues.”

“The country does not have any more appetite for the Clintons,” said Mike Bender, 61. “Enough is enough.”

Then there’s the general electorate. Trump won by speaking to the white working class, acknowledging their economic and cultural anxieties, assuring them that they would no longer be left behind. Hillary, defying even her husband’s advice, simply ignored them.

Through this prism, it’s hard to see how Chelsea Clinton reaches the average voter. She has never struggled for anything. She and her husband, hedge-funder Mark Mezvinsky, live in a $10.5 million apartment in the Flatiron District. Chelsea has held a series of vague high-paying jobs. She worked at McKinsey & Co., a consulting firm, then at Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund. She was passionate about neither, and her accomplishments remain unknown.

read more:


Picture at top: (a condensate of) a real MAD magazine nasty cartoon about Chelsea circa 2000. Due to Gus fantastic collection of MAD stuff plus his amazing memory to remember stupid things, this image was extracted faster than google speed.

clintonite light...

Among many Clintonworld staffers, Chelsea is regarded as an overeducated underachiever. “It bothers the s—t out of me that everyone thinks she’s the greatest thing since sliced bread,” one ex-associate told Daniel Halper, author of “Clinton Inc: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.” “She’s never had a [real] job. She’s been in college for 12 years.”

Late last year, leaked emails from Bill Clinton’s longtime aide Doug Band underscored that sentiment. “She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues … because she, as she has said, hasn’t found her way and has a lack of focus in her life.”

If Chelsea were to run, she’d most likely go after Nita Lowey’s seat in Westchester, where the Clintons live. Lowey, of course, is the lifelong Democrat who’d earned the shot for U.S. Senate in 2000 but stepped aside when Hillary decided to run. Should Chelsea muscle her way in, it would be a very Clintonian beginning — and the party itself should beware the now-Clintonian ending.

read more:

heavy clintonite...

The Clinton email scandal hasn't faded away after Hillary Clinton's resounding defeat in the 2016 presidential election. The case still raises a lot of questions, while tens of thousands of documents have yet to surface. Speaking to Sputnik Jan R. Weinberg, founder of Show Up! America, stressed that there is more to the case than meets the eye.

Although Hillary Clinton lost the political race, the so-called Clinton email scandal continues to smolder. The reason behind this phenomenon is pretty obvious: too many questions still remain unanswered.

After the Federal Investigation Bureau (FBI) closed the Clinton email case for the second time on the eve of the US presidential election it seemed that it was over.

However, in early January FBI quietly released the fifth batch of Hillary Clinton documents while the nation was enjoying the NFL Wildcard Playoffs.


While carrying out his major research on the Obama administration foreign policy initiatives known as the "Pivot to Asia" and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Weinberg stumbled upon the National Center for Public Policy Research's (NCPPR) investigation into an alleged honest services fraud on the part of the Boeing Company and General Electric.


Back in 2015 the conservative think tank shed light on the suspicious pattern of the defense contractors' cooperation with the Clinton Foundation and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The NCPPR assumed that Hillary Clinton lobbied foreign governments on behalf of companies including GE and Boeing at the time when these companies were making generous donations to the Clinton Foundation.

For example, the watchdog referred to the fact that "GE donated between $500,000 and $1 million to a health partnership with the Clinton Foundation. [Secretary of State] Clinton's subsequent actions helped GE obtain a contract with the Algerian government to supply turbines for six power plants to the tune of $1.9 billion."

Likewise, the Boeing Company was also spotted pouring money into the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State; the State, for its part, helped Boeing secure a Russian contract, according to the watchdog.


Read more:


And these emails have nothing to do with the Russians...


ready to come back in the minefield...

As Hillary is ready to come out of the woods... She will need to dodge a few land-mines...


Here comes the minefield:



Retired Lt.-Gen. Michael Flynn has come under attack by the US left-leaning mainstream media over receiving money for a speech at RT’s 2015 conference. Speaking to Radio Sputnik, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel asked why Hillary Clinton’s numerous paid speeches and alleged charity fraud are not getting the same amount of ink in US press.

Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was the first national security advisor appointed by President Donald Trump, has once again come under fierce criticism from Democrats.


This time they accused Flynn of receiving more than $45,386 from Russia’s broadcaster RT for a speech delivered at a conference in Moscow back in December 2015.

Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News presented a leaked paycheck that indicated that Flynn was contracted through Leading Authorities, America’s bureau for keynote speakers, to deliver his speech at the RT conference.

While there is nothing new about the fact that American politicians are used to deliver paid speeches, the leak has again sparked a firestorm of criticism in the US mainstream media against Flynn and President Trump.

Congressional Democrats argues that Flynn violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution since he received payment from the government-funded Russian broadcaster.


Michael Flynn, ex-director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (2012-2014) at the RT conference “Information, messages, politics: the shape-shifting powers of today’s world.”

Flynn appears to “violate Pentagon rules that subject retired military officers to the ‘emoluments clause’ in the US Constitution, prohibiting them from accepting any ‘consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honoraria or salary’ from a foreign government,” Isikoff elaborated.

However, the US mainstream media obsession with the Flynn case raises questions.

“I think that mainstream press, particularly in the United States, leans heavily leftward, heavily in favor of the Democratic party which is still really in shock over the elections in November,” Charles Ortel, an investigative journalist and Wall Street analyst told Radio Sputnik.

“[US media] applied double-standard to their reporting which is beyond stupid,” he stressed.


Ortel highlighted that Flynn is a Democrat who has done a great service to his country.

His only mistake, according to the analyst, is in not disclosing fully the nature of his business arrangements to the Trump campaign.

While pointing the finger of blame at Flynn for delivering paid speeches in Russia, the US mainstream media remain silent about huge sums of money the Clinton family — former President Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary State and twice Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — received from foreign governments.

“Let’s think a little bit here about how much money the Clinton family… from governments around the world in speaking fees,” he stressed.

At first glance it seems that Flynn’s $45,000 for one appearance is huge.

“But what about Hillary Clinton’s making $225,000 a speech, speech after speech after speech — $20 million over the course of eighteen months just after she was Secretary of State and just before she ran for president. Why isn’t that the subject of intense focus? And the money Bill Clinton took and the money that Chelsea Clinton, in smaller amount, is now taking — why isn’t that getting the same amount of ink?” he asked rhetorically.


The answer is that the mainstream media has become part of the problem, instead of being part of the solution, the Wall Street analyst believes.


“The media stars… are not doing the work, they are not going and looking at the hard facts… The mainstream media has let itself down. It is very much part of this celebrity culture and they’ve lost their inquiring minds,” Ortel noted.   

While Democrats are fretting and fuming over Flynn’s allegedly violating the Emoluments Clause, the truth of the matter is that they continue to target the Trump administration through their recent media campaign.

According to Ortel, Democrats “are going to throw everything they can” at the Trump administration to upset the President’s efforts to “drain the swamp.”

But how likely is it that Hillary Clinton will be prosecuted under the same clause?

Ortel says that when it comes to Hillary Clinton it would take a lot of effort to prove the “pay-for-play” allegations and the emoluments clause violation.

“What is easier to prove is [the Clintons’] charity fraud,” he pointed out, highlighting that charity fraud is a special area in US law.

“The penalties under the US state and federal law for charity fraud, particularly involving disaster relief, are incredibly stiff,” he explained.


Ortel, who exposed General Electric’s fraud before its stock crashed in 2008, is investigating the Clinton Foundation’s alleged frauds committed in the US and across the world.

“There have been reports in our press that there have been multiple investigations underway [into the Clintons’ charity alleged fraud] led by FBI officers, that there is an IRS investigation… and there are rumors of investigations in Canada, in Australia,” he said.

“There should be an investigation in France; France is the biggest donor, believe it or not, to the Clinton Foundation,” he said, adding that Norway, Ireland and many other donors have long funded the charity.

If the fraud is proven, all of them would be very much upset, Ortel noted, because they will face major penalties for having given money to the charity that wasn’t properly organized and operated.

read more:


laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong...


Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods. In The New York Times alone, Chelsea has starred in multiple features over the past few months: for her tweeting (it’s become “feisty”), for her upcoming book (to be titled She Persisted), and her reading habits (she says she has an “embarrassingly large” collection of books on her Kindle). With Chelsea’s 2015 book, It’s Your World, now out in paperback, the puff pieces in other outlets—EllePeople, etc.—are too numerous to count.

One wishes to calm these publications: You can stop this now. Haven’t you heard that the great Kong is no more? Nevertheless, they’ve persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases, the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats. So let’s review: How did Chelsea become such a threat?

Perhaps the best way to start is by revisiting some of Chelsea’s major post-2008 forays into the public eye. Starting in 2012, she began to allow glossy magazines to profile her, and she picked up speed in the years that followed. The results were all friendly in aim, and yet the picture that kept emerging from the growing pile of Chelsea quotations was that of a person accustomed to courtiers nodding their heads raptly. Here are Chelsea’s thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: “I’m a big believer in listening to my body’s cravings.” On her time in the “fiercely meritocratic” workplace of Wall Street: “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” On her precocity: “They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper.” Take that, Click, Clack, Moo.

Chelsea, people were quietly starting to observe, had a tendency to talk a lot, and at length, not least about Chelsea. But you couldn’t interrupt, not even if you’re on TV at NBC, where she was earning $600,000 a year at the time. “When you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish,” Jay Kernis, one of Clinton’s segment producers at NBC, told Vogue. “She’s not used to being interrupted that way.”

Sounds perfect for a dating profile: I speak at length, and you really need to let me finish. I’m not used to interruptions.

read more:


see toon at top...