Last night, The New York Times reported on the discovery of secret ledgers showing that a pro-Kremlin Ukrainian political party had earmarked $12.7 million in cash payments for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Manafort played a central role in deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s successful campaigns for Prime Minister in 2006 and the presidency in 2010—but the relationship didn’t end there. The Times investigation uncovered a deep web of ties between Manafort and pro-Kremlin figures in Ukraine.
The story about possible payments from Ukrainian officials to Manafort is just the latest revelation about the Trump campaign’s troubling connections to the Kremlin. Trump has praised Vladimir Putin, seemingly defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea and threatened to unravel the NATO alliance if Russia invaded a U.S. ally. Trump surrogates reportedly took out a plank in the Republican platform pledging to provide arms to Ukraine to fight Kremlin-backed rebels.
]]>In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that was simultaneously published on the Trump-aligned Breitbart News, Schweizer accused Sec. Clinton of showing favoritism towards Clinton Foundation donors in dealings with Russia. It’s the same type of false allegation that Schweizer made in his book Clinton Cash —and that independent media outlets previously debunked.
The op-ed is simply Schweizer’s latest attempt to smear Sec. Clinton and the Clinton Foundation with innuendo—and distract the media from the growing scandal over the Trump campaign’s desire to have a cozy relationship with the Kremlin. For months, Trump has praised Vladimir Putin and threatened to unravel the NATO alliance if Russia invaded a U.S. ally. But in the past few weeks, the Trump campaign’s flirtations with Russia have developed into something more sinister. Trump surrogates reportedly took out a plank in the Republican platform pledging to provide arms to Ukraine to fight Kremlin-backed rebels. Over the past two days, Politico and The Guardian have both reported on the close business and political ties between Trump, senior Republican officials and the Russian elite. And just yesterday, Trump himself appeared to defend Russia’s annexation of Crimea in an interview with ABC News.
It’s a stunning reversal for the Party of Reagan. Voters are now being forced to ask themselves why Trump treats Putin with more respect than many of his fellow Americans. That’s why the GOP had to call in Schweizer—a specialist in conspiracy theory and a mediocre hack (at best):
Schweizer was “a Senior Editor-at-large for the conservative outlet Breitbart” and worked as “a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.” “Schweizer is a Senior Editor-at-Large for the conservative outlet Breitbart News and was a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution think tank. He also worked with President George W. Bush’s speechwriting team in the last year of Bush’s presidency.”
Schweizer was formerly an adviser to Sarah Palin.
The Times, it seems, has decided to debase itself by following the breadcrumbs dropped by this former adviser to Sarah Palin because Schweizer devotes a chapter to Giustra and Kazakhstan, which the Times reported on back in 2008, and the Times plans to follow up on that. I remember reading that Times story at the time and going, ‘Wow, that does look bad.’ But then I also remember reading this Forbes (yes, Forbes!) debunking of the Times story, which was headlined ‘Clinton Commits No Foul in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal.’
‘I think this is a political put-up job, and I can smell it from a mile away,’ Brock said during an interview on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe.’ ‘Yesterday it came out that The New York Times and Fox News were both chasing promotional deals with the author. The Times hyped the story yesterday, praised it, they withheld publicly available information about the author,’ Brock said. ‘They noted that he runs something called the Government Accountability Initiative, but they don’t say that that’s funded by a prime funder of Ted Cruz’s super PAC, by Donor Trust, which is a Koch brothers pass through, so it’s subsidized by Hillary Clinton’s enemies.’
Schweizer’s Clinton Cash was backed by a Koch Brothers-linked organization.
The Clinton campaign circulated a memo to its surrogates and allies on Tuesday night that details talking points and responses to the soon-to-be-published book ‘Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,’ by conservative author Peter Schweizer. ‘The book was backed by a Koch Brothers-linked organization and a billionaire family that is bankrolling Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign,’ writes national press secretary Brian Fallon in the memo, which was forwarded to POLITICO by one of its recipients. In the three-page note Fallon also writes that Schweizer has coordinated with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another presidential candidate and frequent Clinton critic.
New York Daily News’ Joe Conason: “Clinton Cash” has been promoted by a “group of right-wing billionaires.”
And like Whitewater, which was covertly promoted by a right-wing Pittsburgh billionaire named Richard Mellon Scaife, this new ‘scandal’ has been promoted by another group of right-wing billionaires, namely Charles and David Koch and their friends, whose ‘dark money’ organizations have provided lavish funding to create and promote ‘Clinton Cash’ — along with its publisher HarperCollins, controlled by Rupert Murdoch.
Vox: Schweizer “couldn’t prove – or even assert – that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.”
Author Peter Schweizer, whose book Clinton Cash is due out May 5, took his best shot but couldn’t prove — or even assert — that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation. I haven’t read the book, but even Schweizer concedes that what he’s identified is a ‘pattern of behavior,’ not hard evidence of corruption.
New Yorker: “Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way [of] concrete evidence.”
According to the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, “Not having read the book, which comes out on May 5th, I am relying on accounts from journalists who have. But if their versions of what the book contains are accurate, then Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way concrete evidence, which would allow the Clintons’ defenders to go on the offensive. Indeed, this is already happening. On MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ on Tuesday, David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, the liberal-leaning media watchdog, who recently appears to have morphed into a Clinton campaign spokesman, said, ‘I think this is a political put-up job, and I can smell it from a mile away.’
Schweizer admitted that he had no “‘direct evidence’ of any impropriety.”
The author of a book alleging that some donors to the Clinton Foundation received favors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday that he did not have ‘direct evidence’ of any impropriety, but argued the ‘pattern of behavior’ required an investigation into Clinton’s record.
Fox News: “The author of ‘Clinton Cash’ acknowledged Sunday that his book has no evidence that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state directly influenced huge international deals in exchange for million-dollar contributions.”
The author of ‘Clinton Cash’ acknowledged Sunday that his book has no evidence that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state directly influenced huge international deals in exchange for million-dollar contributions to her family foundation but argued the numerous instances deserve an investigation.
The Hill: “Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.”
With the controversy around donations to her family’s charitable foundation growing, Democrats are bracing for more attacks on the former secretary of State — just the beginning of what they expect to be an 18-month assault on their party’s front-runner. […] Those attacks for now revolve around the upcoming book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.
An independent review of source material by ABC News uncovered errors in “Clinton Cash.”
An independent review of source material by ABC News uncovered errors in the book, including an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated. Schweitzer said the errors would be corrected. But those same records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department.
ThinkProgress: Schweizer relied on a fake press release in an attempt to support his debunked claims of a quid pro quo on the Keystone Pipeline.
Schweizer also fingers Bill Clinton’s speaking fees, a favorite target in conservative circles, as a potential avenue to influence Hillary. He links the timing of the State Department’s generally positive report on the Keystone XL Pipeline with a slew of Clinton speeches paid for by TD Bank, a major shareholder in the project. As proof of how crucial Clinton’s support for the pipeline was to the bank, Schweizer quotes a press release that claimed TD Bank would ‘begin selling its $1.6 billion worth of shares in the massive but potentially still-born Keystone XL crude pipeline project’ after Clinton left office. The press release was quickly revealed to be fake in 2013. Yet Schweizer, apparently unaware of the hoax, remarks, ‘Too bad for TD Bank. But the Clintons got paid regardless.’
In the book’s chapter on Haiti, dubbed ‘Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style,’ which was obtained by BuzzFeed News, Schweizer writes that O’Brien, whose company Digicel was attempting to secure a contract for mobile phone service in Haiti, paid Clinton $600,000 for speeches in Ireland on Sept. 29, 2010, Oct. 8, 2011, and Oct. 9, 2013. Schweizer argues ‘the timing of these paid speeches is notable’ because they came during the contract awarding process — and goes on to note that starting in 2011 Digicel began receiving contracts in Haiti that would total $2 million from USAID, the first time the company had received grants from the organization. Schweizer also cites a fourth speech in the book that he says occurred in October 2011 in Kingston, Jamaica, just weeks before Digicel received its first grant. But according to Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna, neither the former president nor the Clinton Foundation was paid for two of the three speeches Clinton gave in Ireland, and that while the Foundation did receive a donation following his Sept. 29, 2010 speech, Clinton himself was not compensated.
In 2005, the Indian government wanted those restrictions lifted. Hillary Clinton at that time supported a killer amendment to stop that from happening. After 2005, a number of Indian interests, including an Indian politician that admits now that his donation to the Clinton Foundation wasn’t even his money, those donations flowed. In 2008, she reverses course, and supports the export of U.S. nuclear technology.’ While Clinton’s India stance evolved over the years, a review of then-Sen. Clinton’s statements and votes while the Indian nuclear deal was under debate shows that two key facts in Schweizer’s argument on the topic are false, as Clinton actually publicly stated her support for the deal in 2006 and in fact voted against a ‘killer amendment’ that the book reports she supported.
Amazon on Tuesday blasted out an alert to purchasers of the book — which investigates connections between the Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department, and debuted at no. 2 on the New York Times’ bestseller list for the week of March 24 — notifying them that ‘significant revisions have been made.’ ‘An updated version of your past Kindle purchase…is now available,’ reads the email. ‘The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made.’ Schweizer corrected ‘seven or eight’ passages that were revealed to be inaccurate after the book was released, according to publisher HarperCollins.
When Trump arrives, he will not be met with a warm welcome. In fact, Donald Trump has a “long, tortured relationship with Scotland” and is “notoriously disliked” by Scots because of his business deals with little regard for the rural communities surrounding his properties.
But Trump’s problems with American allies don’t end there. During his campaign, Trump has cozied up with Russian President Vladimir Putin and won praise from a North Korean state paper, all while slandering women, the LGBT community, Mexicans, and Muslims–actions that prompted the British Parliament to debate a formal Donald Trump ban from the UK.
Trump’s alarming relationships with the world’s most notorious dictators and willingness to abandon our allies is cause for alarm and would have “dangerous consequences” for the United States.
Scotland: Foe
FORTUNE: Here’s Why Donald Trump Should Expect a Chilly Reception In Scotland
“On Friday, presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is set to visit Scotland –but there is probably no country in the world where he is least welcomed. Protests are already planned, and Scotland’s current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is expected to rebuff him.”
Vladimir Putin: Friend
Donald Trump: President Vladimir Putin is getting an “A” for his leadership. [Politico, 9/29/15; The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, 9/19/15]
Donald Trump on Putin: “At least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in [the USA] country.” [CNN, 12/18/15]
Donald Trump said he was “honored” by Putin’s “very nice statement about me,” adding that Putin was “making mincemeat out of [Obama]. He is a strong leader.” [Meet The Press, NBC News, 12/20/15]
Donald Trump defended Putin on charges he killed journalists — “In all fairness to Putin … have you been able to prove that? … I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s killed anybody in terms of reporters.” [This Week, ABC News, 12/20/15]
“Of course Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un support the presumptive GOP nominee. He serves their interests.”
United Kingdom: Foe
Donald Trump on Prime Minister David Cameron: “It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship.” [CNN, 5/16/16]
Donald Trump called the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan “very rude.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/16/16]
Kim Jong-Un: Friend
Donald Trump on Kim Jong-Un: “You’ve gotta give him credit… he goes in. He takes over. He’s the boss. It’s incredible.” [Campaign Rally, Ottumwa IA, 1/9/16]
Donald Trump said “I would speak to [Kim Jong -Un], I would have no problem speaking to him.” [CNN, 5/18/16]
“Asia’s authoritarians are endorsing the Donald, and his willingness to walk away from America’s longtime allies. North Korea has all but endorsed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.”
NATO ALLIES: Foe
Donald Trump: “I think NATO is obsolete.” [ABC’s This Week, 3/27/16]
Donald Trump on his foreign policy: “If it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO.” [New York Times, 4/2/16]
South Korea: Foe
Donald Trump suggested the United States should withdraw its 28,000 troops defending South Korea from North Korea. TRUMP: “We have 28,000 soldiers sitting up at the line, and between North Korea right now between North Korea and South Korea. I wouldn’t want to be necessarily sitting there. Could be a hot zone. But we get almost nothing for what we do. We defend the world. We defend so many countries. We get nothing. They get everything, we get nothing. South Korea’s going to have to start ponying up, okay?” [Fox & Friends, Fox News, 1/6/16]
Donald Trump: “We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself.” “What we’ve learned about Trump’s world view ‘Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea,’ Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Tuesday. ‘We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself … they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.’” [CNN, 3/31/16]
]]>Trump said, “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
The State Department and independent media outlets ranging from The Washington Post and the New Yorker, to Vox and ABC found the Clinton Cash contained no compelling evidence of favoritism for Clinton Foundation donors. According to the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, author Peter Schweizer “doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way of concrete evidence.” Vox’s Jonathan Allen agreed, stating Clinton Cash failed to “prove – or even assert – that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation,” and outlets noted that the book relied heavily on innuendo and circumstantial evidence over any hard facts.
In fact, when media outlets and experts reviewed the book, they found errors and inaccuracies that required correcting. Schweizer was forced to correct or make “significant revisions” to “seven or eight” passages containing inaccuracies, including multiple passages attempting to connect some of President Clinton’s speeches to Secretary Clinton’s actions at the State Department.
During multiple television appearances touting his book, author Peter Schweizer was forced to admit that he had no concrete evidence of the alleged quid pro quos for Clinton Foundation donors. The Hill reported on Schweizer’s acknowledgment that “he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” During an appearance on ABC, Schweizer simply stated, “we don’t have direct evidence,” for the assertions in the book. Even Fox News reported on the author’s acknowledgment that he lacked evidence.
Today, Donald Trump asserted that as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton exerted her influence to approve the purchase of a large uranium mining company, Uranium One, by Russia. This claim has been widely reviewed and debunked. Despite the claims made by Trump, Hillary Clinton could not exert undue influence on approval of the sale because the State Department was just one of nine agencies represented on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.), which reviews such sales. The deal needed approval from multiple U.S. agencies and the Canadian government. Moreover, the State Department representative to C.F.I.U.S. said Hillary Clinton was not involved on the State Department’s review and did not discuss the uranium sale and called claims to the contrary “absurd conspiracy theories.” Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, was forced to admit on ABC, “We don’t have direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton intervened in the deal, and FactCheck.org made clear that Clinton could not have “stopped the deal” through a veto.
The former chairman of Uranium One also made clear that he became a donor to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative well before the sale was being considered and rejected any claims that donations could be implied as an effort to influence the U.S. government’s review of the sale. Another supposed benefactor from the sale and Clinton Foundation donor, Frank Giustra, actually sold his stake in the company before the sale and more than 18 months before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, another truth Schweizer was forced to confront on ABC.
The Clinton Foundation is a global non-profit organization dedicated to increasing opportunity for women and girls, improving global health, and creating economic opportunity and growth around the world. Despite right wing attacks, the Foundation has been praised by national and international leaders, business, and charity organizations for its effective and lifesaving work around the globe. Among its numerous initiatives, the Clinton Foundation has ensured access to affordable HIV/AIDS treatment to 9.9 million people, reducing the costs of treatments by over 80% . Since its inception, the Clinton Global Initiative has brought together philanthropists and businesses to improve the lives of over 430 million people.
Philanthropists are attracted to the Clinton Foundation due to its highly regarded efficiency. The American Institute of Philanthropy awarded the Foundation consecutive A and A+ ratings for using nearly all contributions for its charitable activities. Following attacks on the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising, FactCheck.org highlighted that the Foundation “conducts most of its charitable activities directly,” ensuring that the vast majority of money raised would be used to further its global mission.
Donald Trump was a supporter of the Clinton Foundation. Individually and through the Donald J. Trump Foundation, he has donated more than $100,000 to the Foundation and has attended a meeting of Clinton Global Initiative. Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, also supported the Clinton Foundation with donations between $5,000 and $10,000.
]]>The real estate mogul rented his estate to Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, despite the dictator’s support of terrorism that killed Americans. Trump partnered on a real estate project in Baku, Azerbaijan with the son of a government minister suspected of laundering money for Iran–just six months before entering the presidential race!
But Trump himself isn’t the only one on his campaign with close ties to dictators and foreign corruption. His campaign manager “made a fortune repping some of the most despicable dictators of the 20th century.”
Trump is very comfortable with corruption. Here are just a few examples:
Donald Trump sought to do business with notorious Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi.
Overlooking terrorism that killed Americans, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Donald Trump sought investment partnerships with Muammar al-Qaddafi and the Libyan regime. He rented his Westchester estate to the dictator, tried to set up a face-to-face meeting, and took the Libyan ambassador golfing.
Six months before he entered the presidential race, Donald Trump announced a new real estate project in Baku, Azerbaijan. His partner was the son of a government minister suspected by U.S. diplomats of laundering money for Iran’s military and described as ‘notoriously corrupt.’
Top Trump aide Paul Manafort and his lobbying firm have represented “dictators, guerilla groups, and despots with no regard for human rights—including one man responsible for mass amputations, and another who oversaw state-sanctioned rape.” According to the Daily Beast, “Manafort and the partners at his firm made a fortune repping some of the most despicable dictators of the 20th century.
Trump was especially eager for the presence of another honored guest: Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump tweeted Putin a personal invitation to attend the pageant, and a one-on-one meeting between the New York businessman and the Russian leader was scheduled for the day before the show. Putin canceled at the last minute, but he sent a decorative lacquered box, a traditional Russian gift, and a warm note, according to Aras Agalarov, a Moscow billionaire who served as a liaison between Trump and the Russian leader. […] Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.
Donald Trump has been involved in development deals with convicted criminals at least twice.
At least twice, Trump has been involved in development deals with convicted criminals. In 2001, Trump announced he was partnering with developer Leib Waldman to build a massive condo and hotel tower in Toronto. Two months later, Canadian newspapers revealed that Waldman had fled the United States after pleading guilty to bankruptcy fraud in the mid-1990s. His extradition sent the project into a tailspin. […] In the early years of the last decade, Trump also struck an alliance with Bayrock Group LLC, an upstart property development firm that had recently moved into the Trump Tower. As a partner, Bayrock didn’t have much of a track record. The firm was created in July 2001. Its two top officials were Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet hospitality minister whose previous development experience had been in Turkey, and Felix Satter. Digging into the background of Satter wouldn’t have turned up much because Satter did not actually exist. But a man with a similarly spelled name, Felix Sater, had been sentenced to prison for stabbing a man in the face with a broken margarita glass and barred for life from selling securities.
Donald Trump’s purported mentor was a lawyer for the mafia.
New York lawyer Roy Cohn had “a long, formidable list [of clients] that included the executives of media empires, the Archbishop of New York and mafia kingpin Fat Tony Salerno, and there, too, near the top, was budding, grasping Donald John Trump. ‘He considered Cohn a mentor,’ Mike Gentile, the lead prosecutor who got Cohn disbarred for fraud and deceit not long before he died, said in a recent interview.
Donald Trump hired an indicted drug trafficker to fly high rollers around Atlantic City.
Trump’s casinos retained [Joseph] Weichselbaum’s firm to fly high rollers to Atlantic City. Weichselbaum was indicted in Ohio on charges of trafficking in marijuana and cocaine. The head of one of Trump’s casinos was notified of the indictment in October 1985, but Trump continued using Weichselbaum—conduct that again could have cost Trump his casino license had state regulators pressed the matter, because casino owners were required to distance themselves from any hint of crime.
Donald Trump tapped a man to be a senior business adviser to his real-estate empire even after the man’s past involvement in a major mafia-linked stock fraud scheme had become publicly known, according to Associated Press interviews and a review of court records.
Six months before he entered the presidential race, Donald Trump announced a new real estate project in Baku, Azerbaijan. His partner was the son of a government minister suspected by U.S. diplomats of laundering money for Iran’s military and described as ‘notoriously corrupt.’
Top Trump aide Paul Manafort and his lobbying firm have represented “dictators, guerilla groups, and despots with no regard for human rights—including one man responsible for mass amputations, and another who oversaw state-sanctioned rape.” According to the Daily Beast, “Manafort and the partners at his firm made a fortune repping some of the most despicable dictators of the 20th century.
Trump was especially eager for the presence of another honored guest: Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump tweeted Putin a personal invitation to attend the pageant, and a one-on-one meeting between the New York businessman and the Russian leader was scheduled for the day before the show. Putin canceled at the last minute, but he sent a decorative lacquered box, a traditional Russian gift, and a warm note, according to Aras Agalarov, a Moscow billionaire who served as a liaison between Trump and the Russian leader. […] Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.
Donald Trump has been involved in development deals with convicted criminals at least twice.
At least twice, Trump has been involved in development deals with convicted criminals. In 2001, Trump announced he was partnering with developer Leib Waldman to build a massive condo and hotel tower in Toronto. Two months later, Canadian newspapers revealed that Waldman had fled the United States after pleading guilty to bankruptcy fraud in the mid-1990s. His extradition sent the project into a tailspin. […] In the early years of the last decade, Trump also struck an alliance with Bayrock Group LLC, an upstart property development firm that had recently moved into the Trump Tower. As a partner, Bayrock didn’t have much of a track record. The firm was created in July 2001. Its two top officials were Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet hospitality minister whose previous development experience had been in Turkey, and Felix Satter. Digging into the background of Satter wouldn’t have turned up much because Satter did not actually exist. But a man with a similarly spelled name, Felix Sater, had been sentenced to prison for stabbing a man in the face with a broken margarita glass and barred for life from selling securities.
Donald Trump’s purported mentor was a lawyer for the mafia.
New York lawyer Roy Cohn had “a long, formidable list [of clients] that included the executives of media empires, the Archbishop of New York and mafia kingpin Fat Tony Salerno, and there, too, near the top, was budding, grasping Donald John Trump. ‘He considered Cohn a mentor,’ Mike Gentile, the lead prosecutor who got Cohn disbarred for fraud and deceit not long before he died, said in a recent interview.
Donald Trump hired an indicted drug trafficker to fly high rollers around Atlantic City.
Trump’s casinos retained [Joseph] Weichselbaum’s firm to fly high rollers to Atlantic City. Weichselbaum was indicted in Ohio on charges of trafficking in marijuana and cocaine. The head of one of Trump’s casinos was notified of the indictment in October 1985, but Trump continued using Weichselbaum—conduct that again could have cost Trump his casino license had state regulators pressed the matter, because casino owners were required to distance themselves from any hint of crime.
Donald Trump tapped a man to be a senior business adviser to his real-estate empire even after the man’s past involvement in a major mafia-linked stock fraud scheme had become publicly known, according to Associated Press interviews and a review of court records.
The RNC plans to run a negative attack ad tonight during Hillary Clinton’s televised town hall on CNN. While she talks directly with Americans about serious national and global issues, the right wing will be void of substance, focused on hyperbolic political attacks. Cherry picking select footage from Hillary Clinton’s Diane Sawyer interview last week, the ad attacks Clinton for being candid about her family’s finances leaving the White House when they were millions of dollars in debt. Following the recent housing crisis, many Americans know what it is like to be financially upside down. Staying true to their principles, the Clintons have been generous with charities and noble causes as they paid off their debt and lived the American Dream. Once again, the RNC turns to misleading on process instead of engaging on substantive truth. See the real facts, below.
| RNC: “STOP HILLARY” | |
| HILLARY CLINTON: We struggled. Dead broke. [ON-SCREEN: BROKE?]
HOWARD FINEMAN: Uh, come on. That was a disastrous comment.
TOURE: This is a tone-deaf comment.
|
THE RNC’S SELECTIVE MASH-UP SEVERELY MISQUOTES HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary Clinton: When we came out of the White House, we were “not only dead broke, but in debt” and struggled to “piece together the resources” to pay the mortgage. The following exchange took place on ABC: DIANE SAWYER: “It has been reported you’ve made $5 million making speeches. The president’s made more than $100 million.” HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, if you — you have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.” [ABC, 6/9/14]
CNN: “The Clintons departed the White House in debt.” “The Clintons departed the White House in debt, thanks to enormous legal fees. By the end of 2000, the Clintons carried debt totaling somewhere between $2.28 million to $10.6 million.” [CNN, 6/9/14]
|
| FINEMAN: She didn’t struggle.
CHUCK TODD: Perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors?
|
Hillary Clinton: “We worked hard for everything we got in our lives.” In an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, Hillary Clinton said, “Let me just clarify that I fully appreciate how hard life is for so many Americans today. It’s an issue that I have worked on and cared about my entire adult life. Bill and I were obviously blessed. We worked hard for everything we got in our lives. And we have continued to work hard.” [ABC, 6/10/14]
Since leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton has met and spoken with students, faith leaders, and human rights activists – just to name a few. Since stepping down from the State Department, Hillary Clinton has met and shared her experiences with women’s rights activists in Malaysia, children in Arkansas, students in Pennsylvania, human rights activists in California and Washington, and faith leaders in Kentucky – just to name a handful.
|
| HILLARY CLINTON: We’d make double the money. Get us houses. [ON-SCREEN: September 2, 1999]
ANCHOR: In Chappaqua, New York, 1.7 million dollars.
FINEMAN: Very fancy street in Washington. [ON-SCREEN: December 29, 2000]
VO: 2.85 million dollars.
HILLARY CLINTON: We struggled. Dead broke.
KEILAR: 8 million dollars. So she’s not really hurting. [ON-SCREEN: STOP HILLARY. DONATE NOW. GOP.COM]
|
THE RNC’S AGAIN SELECTIVELY MASHED-UP AND SEVERELY MISQUOTED CLINTON
Hillary Clinton: We had “to make double the money because there’s obviously taxes” and then we had to “pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.” Hillary Clinton stated the following on ABC: “First of all, we had to pay off all our debts, which was — you know, you had to make double the money because there’s obviously taxes, and then pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.” [ABC, 6/9/14] |
America Rising needs to get their facts straight. Today they launched an attack against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accusing her of distancing herself from the Administration’s decision to go to Congress for authorization on Syria. America Rising posted a partial video clip from her speech yesterday where Secretary Clinton stated that Obama’s decision was “his and his alone.” If you listen to the rest of the video, however, Secretary Clinton reinforces her respect for President Obama’s decision, as she has from the beginning.
ATTACK: Secretary Clinton distanced herself yesterday from the Administration’s decision to go before Congress on Syria.
FACT: Secretary Clinton has made clear that, even though she advocated a plan to arm the Syrian rebels, it was “President Obama’s call” and she “respected his deliberations and decision.”
In her book Hard Choices, Secretary Clinton wrote, “[T]he risks of both action and inaction were high. Both choices would bring unintended consequences. The Presidents’ inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels. No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the President’s call and I respected his deliberations and decision. From the beginning of our partnership, he had promised me that would always get a fair hearing. And I always did. In this case, my position didn’t prevail.” [Hard Choices, 2014]
FACT: Secretary Clinton stated that the decision to go to Congress was President Obama’s and “what troubled him was not having support by what was by then a quite contentious Congress.”
In a question and answer session with former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna, Sec. Clinton said, “Well I had supported the President’s statements around that time that there had to be consequences. And people say, why did he draw this red line, you should never draw red lines, and in fact it was because the use of chemical weapons has been outlawed and ostracized since WWI. And it’s the kind of aggressive action that cannot be allowed to go forward. So even if you aren’t willing to support certain elements of the opposition with arms, the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons, which it was not clear at first and then it became clear that they had, had to be stopped. It was a threat to the region and it would just lift off the top of the Pandora’s box. So I said at the time that I supported the President saying that there would have to be consequences, and I supported the President going to the extent of saying there would have to be military consequences. The decision he made about going to the Congress was really his and his alone. And I really think what troubled him was not having support by what was by then a quite contentious Congress. Because even though we have what is called great ‘standoff military power,’ we have aircraft carriers, we have cruise missiles, we have all kinds of means of trying to pinpoint chemical weapons storage facilities or convoys, you are never going to predict what’s going to happen.” [Sec. Clinton speech at Toronto’s Sheraton Centre, 6/16/14]
FACT: Secretary Clinton reinforced her respect for the Administration’s decision to go to Congress on Syria, stating her thought that President Obama “knew he wanted to do something” and that “I made a statement endorsing the effort to get out, the chemical weapons.”
In a question and answer session with former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna, Sec. Clinton said, “[The] other problem is, militarily destroying chemical weapons is a terrible risk. You don’t know everything that’s in those warehouses. You don’t know what it means to blow them up. So, I think the President knew he wanted to do something, and do something very definite. But he also believed he wanted to get the Congress behind him because of unintended consequences. And then when the Russian’s responded that they’d work with the United States, I actually was prescheduled to be at the White House, which I write about, so I made a statement endorsing the effort to get out, the chemical weapons. And, you know, enormous progress has been made, so on the one hand it was kind of an unfortunate sequence of events, but on the other, the result people were trying to get has been largely achieved.” [Sec. Clinton speech at Toronto’s Sheraton Centre, 6/16/14]
“We know many Americans have matured on this issue, and our country is in a better place for it,” Adrienne Watson, spokeswoman for Correct The Record, a rapid response group preparing for a 2016 run, said in a statement. “As a Senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton’s record on LGBT rights is strong. We regret the right’s attempt to demonize her for speaking honestly about her journey, a journey so many people have taken.”
EVOLVING SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
2014
Sec. Clinton, on gay rights: “This is going to be an ongoing struggle and the United States must be on the front lines.”According to the Chicago Sun-Times coverage of Sec. Clinton’s discussion with Rahm Emanuel at the Chicago Ideas Week convention, “On the subject of gay rights, Clinton said her time abroad has taught her there’s an ‘increasing backlash’ against LGBT communities, leading her to lay out a platform for gay rights before world leaders in Geneva. ‘I began to vigorously protest with governments in many parts of the world,’ she said. Some countries just need to be ‘brought along.’ Others: ‘Are just cynical. Like what Putin’s doing in Russia with all these laws against the LGBT community. That is just a cynical political ploy. I’ve gotten into shouting matches with top Russian officials. But I realized unless there was an argument made, a platform created, we wouldn’t have as strong of a case.’ ‘We have a long way to go, I don’t want to mislead anybody,’ Clinton said. ‘This is going to be an ongoing struggle and the United States must be on the front lines.’” [Politics Early & Often, Chicago Sun-Times, 6/11/14]
2013
Hillary Clinton: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.” Secretary Hillary Clinton: “LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. That’s why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law.” [Human Rights Campaign, 3/18/13]
SECRETARY OF STATE
Sec. Clinton sent a memo stating the State Department “will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats.” “The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers. Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits. ‘Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad,’ Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association. ‘At bottom,’ she said, ‘the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do.’ A senior State Department official confirmed the new policy, though he did not say when it would take effect. Among the benefits are diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between posts, and training in security and languages.” [The New York Times, 5/24/09]
Sec. Clinton directed the State Department to “champion a comprehensive human rights agenda” that included protection of LGBT human rights. “Human rights are inalienable and belong to every person, no matter who that person is or whom that person loves. Since January 2009, Secretary Clinton has directed the Department to champion a comprehensive human rights agenda — one that includes the protection of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The Department uses its full range of diplomatic and development tools to press for the elimination of violence and discrimination against LGBT people worldwide, particularly those forced to flee their homes or countries.” [State Dept. Fact Sheet: Promoting Human Rights of LGBT People, 12/6/11]
Sec. Clinton made the promotion of equality for gay people a core value of U.S. foreign policy. “As Hillary Clinton makes a whirlwind round of appearances in her last days as secretary of state, one groundbreaking aspect of her work deserves a moment in the spotlight: In a bold departure with tradition, Clinton made the promotion of equality for gay people a core value of U.S. foreign policy.That is a transformative change, one that advances the cause of human rights around the world — not just for gays and lesbians, but for everyone.” [Ghitis, CNN, 2/8/13]
Sec. Clinton: “There is this rising global tide of violence against the LGBT community around the world.” “‘There is this rising global tide of violence against the LGBT community around the world,’ Clinton says, ‘and we are taking the lead in confronting the dangers of the lives and the livelihood of LGBT people as they go about their daily lives.’ As she works to redefine the U.S. role on international gay and lesbian rights, part of Clinton’s job has been to make sure a cultural shift permeates all levels of the State Department and the furthest reaches of its bureaucracies, including U.S. embassies, where change can sometimes come at a slow pace.” [The Advocate, 1/10/11]
The State Department worked to “encourage countries to repeal or reform laws that criminalize LGBT status.” “The State Department works with U.S. embassies, civil society, and multilateral mechanisms, agencies, and forums to encourage countries to repeal or reform laws that criminalize LGBT status.” [The Department of State’s Accomplishments Promoting the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, 12/6/11]
The State Department “led efforts” to reinsert language on sexual orientation into a UN resolution on executions. “In December 2010, the State Department led efforts at the UN General Assembly to reinsert language on sexual orientation into a resolution on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions, after the language’s removal in committee. The amendment was approved by a 93-55 margin.” [The Department of State’s Accomplishments Promoting the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, 12/6/11]
SENATE
Senator Clinton cosponsored legislation providing equal benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton was an original cosponsor of legislation entitling “domestic partners of Federal employees to benefits available to spouses of Federal employees.” Senator Clinton stated that “these are Americans who have made a commitment to one another and they should not be denied benefits.” [S.1252, 6/12/03]
Hillary Clinton advocated for lifting the restrictions blocking gay and lesbian couples from adopting kids. “We’re going to make sure that nothing stands in the way of loving couples – gay or straight – who want to adopt children. I have spent more than 35 years fighting for children and families and I have seen the sadness and the hope in the eyes of children who are desperate for a family to call their own. We have a fundamental obligation to make sure these children have loving homes and a chance to succeed.” [Hillary Clinton speech to the Human Rights Campaign Board Meeting, 3/3/07]
Hillary Clinton spoke out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a U.S. Senator. “Gay troops should be able to serve in the U.S. military without hiding their sexual identity, Sen. Hillary Clinton said here Sunday. Clinton said it’s time to drop the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, which began when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president. The policy says that gays may serve in the military if they keep their homosexuality secret but that they can be tossed out if they don’t. ‘Right now, we are discharging soldiers? At a time when we don’t have enough people to do the missions we need around the world? Because they’re gay. Not because they’ve done anything, but just because they’re gay,’ she said.” [USA Today,4/22/07]
Hillary Clinton cosponsored the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton was an original cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would have expanded the federal criminal hate crime code to include sexual orientation and gender identity. [S.1105, 4/12/07]]
Hillary Clinton repeatedly cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to prevent employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton was an original cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2002 and 2003 to prevent employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Hillary Clinton has said it is “inconceivable to me that people who work hard and do a good job every day can still be fired because of who they love. It’s unfair, it’s un-American, and I will put a stop to it once and for all.” [S.1284, 7/31/01; S.1705, 10/2/03; Human Rights Campaign 2008 Presidential Questionnaire]
FLOTUS
Hillary Clinton spoke out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a candidate for U.S. Senate. “Hillary Rodham Clinton told a group of gay contributors this week that the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, intended to make it easier for gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, had been a failure, her aides said yesterday. Mrs. Clinton, a candidate for the United States Senate, said that if elected she would work to overturn the policy, one of the first put in place under President Clinton… ‘Gays and lesbians already serve with distinction in our nation’s armed forces and should not face discrimination,’ Mrs. Clinton said in the statement. ‘Fitness to serve should be based on an individual’s conduct, not their sexual orientation.’” [New York Times, 12/9/99]
The reviews are in and Hillary Clinton’s new book, “Hard Choices,” is a success. Critics have praised the authenticity and insight of the former Secretary of State’s new memoir. The right wing nonetheless is trying to spin the reviews, but the facts speak for themselves. Read a sample of the reviews, below.
Washington Post’s Dan Balz: “‘Hard Choices’ is a more interesting read, enriched not simply by her nearly million miles of international travel to 112 countries but more by her accounts of scores of conversations with world leaders as the administration grappled with one challenge after another.” According to Dan Balz in the Washington Post’s The Take, “Compared with her book ‘Living History,’ published in 2003, ‘Hard Choices’ is a more interesting read, enriched not simply by her nearly million miles of international travel to 112 countries but more by her accounts of scores of conversations with world leaders as the administration grappled with one challenge after another. Through nearly 600 pages, she comes across less a visionary and more a practical-minded problem solver.” [The Take, Washington Post, 6/7/14]
Washington Post’s Dan Balz, on Sec. Clinton in “Hard Choices”: “Through nearly 600 pages, she comes across less a visionary and more a practical-minded problem solver.” According to Dan Balz in the Washington Post’s The Take, “Compared with her book ‘Living History,’ published in 2003, ‘Hard Choices’ is a more interesting read, enriched not simply by her nearly million miles of international travel to 112 countries but more by her accounts of scores of conversations with world leaders as the administration grappled with one challenge after another. Through nearly 600 pages, she comes across less a visionary and more a practical-minded problem solver.” [The Take, Washington Post, 6/7/14]
NYT’s Amy Chozick, on “Hard Choices”: “Mrs. Clinton’s latest memoir, ‘Hard Choices,’ delivers a potent mix of feminine gusto and diplomatic capers. In doing so, she offers a sharp contrast to the argument that she needed to diminish her softer side.” According to the New York Times, “In Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first bid for president in 2008, her campaign seemed determined to make a powerful point: She was strong. She was tough. She was ready to lead. In her new book, even as she lays out her foreign policy vision, Mrs. Clinton shows a side of herself that campaign did not: human, motherly, jokey, self-deprecating. Mrs. Clinton’s latest memoir, ‘Hard Choices,’ delivers a potent mix of feminine gusto and diplomatic capers. In doing so, she offers a sharp contrast to the argument that she needed to diminish her softer side.” [New York Times, 6/6/14]
CBS News’ John Dickerson: “Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t put herself on the couch when it comes to the attack on Benghazi. Clinton devotes two chapters to Libya.” According to CBS News’ John Dickerson’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t put herself on the couch when it comes to the attack on Benghazi. Clinton devotes two chapters to Libya. The first is about the messy and perilous process of keeping the coalition together. Like several passages in the book–on Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and even China–there is a good pace to developments and the back-and-forth will be interesting for anyone who’d like to know more about the competing interests of nations.” [CBS News, 6/6/14]
CBS News’ John Dickerson: “Like several passages in the book–on Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and even China–there is a good pace to developments and the back-and-forth will be interesting for anyone who’d like to know more about the competing interests of nations.” According to CBS News’ John Dickerson’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t put herself on the couch when it comes to the attack on Benghazi. Clinton devotes two chapters to Libya. The first is about the messy and perilous process of keeping the coalition together. Like several passages in the book–on Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and even China–there is a good pace to developments and the back-and-forth will be interesting for anyone who’d like to know more about the competing interests of nations.” [CBS News, 6/6/14]
CBS News’ John Dickerson: “For voters who worry about a complex world, Clinton will be the candidate most equipped to show voters that they will not be taking a risk by putting the world in her hands.” According to CBS News’ John Dickerson’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “For voters who worry about a complex world, Clinton will be the candidate most equipped to show voters that they will not be taking a risk by putting the world in her hands.” [CBS News, 6/6/14]
Washington Post’s David Ignatius: “’Hard Choices’ begins and ends in the empty voice of a campaign speech. But in between, it contains a clear and at times riveting account of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s four years as secretary of state.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “’Hard Choices’ begins and ends in the empty voice of a campaign speech. But in between, it contains a clear and at times riveting account of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s four years as secretary of state. This is a careful book, written tactically to burnish friendships and avoid making enemies. Perhaps that’s inevitable for an autobiographer who is considering running for president, but there are times when the reader feels he is being ‘spun’ rather than enlightened.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14]
Washington Post’s David Ignatius, on “Hard Choices”: “It lays out the case that she [Sec. Clinton] was a good secretary of state and a good person.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “Judged as a political document, the book probably will serve Clinton well. It lays out the case that she was a good secretary of state and a good person; it includes a forceful defense of her role in Benghazi, along with many believable passages about her enduring love for her sometimes faithless husband Bill. There’s nothing here that seems likely to get her in trouble with anyone, which is doubtless good politics but is a bad thing to say about a memoir.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14]
Washington Post’s David Ignatius: “The best thing you can say about a secretary of state is that she gives the president good advice and keeps her mouth shut if she loses the argument, and Clinton appears (by her obviously selective account) to have passed these tests.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “The best thing you can say about a secretary of state is that she gives the president good advice and keeps her mouth shut if she loses the argument, and Clinton appears (by her obviously selective account) to have passed these tests.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14]
Washington Post’s David Ignatius, on “Hard Choices”: “The book itself should reinforce the case of those who believe Clinton is well prepared to be president.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “Clinton is maddeningly coy about whether she will run for president in 2016 (‘The answer is: I haven’t decided yet.’) The tedious opening and closing sections of the book make clear that she’s well-stocked with campaign bromides. But the book itself should reinforce the case of those who believe Clinton is well prepared to be president.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14]
NYT Book Review by Michiko Kakutani, on “Hard Choices”: “The book itself… turns out to be a subtle, finely calibrated work that provides a portrait of the former secretary of state and former first lady as a heavy-duty policy wonk.” According to the New York Times’ Book Review’s review of “Hard Choices” by Sec. Clinton, “The book itself, however, turns out to be a subtle, finely calibrated work that provides a portrait of the former secretary of state and former first lady as a heavy-duty policy wonk. Compared with her 2003 memoir, ‘Living History’ — which tended to lapse into glib, stump-speechlike pronouncements and reactive efforts to blame assorted enemies for her and her husband’s travails — ‘Hard Choices’ is a statesmanlike document intended to attest to Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and on foreign policy.” [“Hard Choices”, New York Times Book Review, 6/7/14]
NYT Book Review by Michiko Kakutani, on “Hard Choices”: “Mrs. Clinton displays a pragmatic, case-by-case modus operandi.” According to the New York Times’ Book Review’s review of “Hard Choices” by Sec. Clinton, “‘Hard Choices,’ like Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, does not evince a grand, overarching foreign policy vision, as Henry A. Kissinger’s 1994 book ‘Diplomacy’ did. Rather, Mrs. Clinton displays a pragmatic, case-by-case modus operandi. Some critics have argued that she played it safe as secretary of state, that she had no marquee achievements like a Middle East peace accord. And her new book (written with an assist from what she calls her ‘book team’) suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s main legacy lies in reorienting American foreign policy in a globalized, tech-savvy 21st century, and in helping restore the country’s image abroad in the wake of the Iraq war and the unilateralism of President George W. Bush’s administration.” [“Hard Choices”, New York Times Book Review, 6/7/14]
NYT Book Review by Michiko Kakutani, on “Hard Choices”: “One of the few things this book shares with ‘Living History’ is its emphasis on Mrs. Clinton as someone capable of growth and change.” According to the New York Times’ Book Review’s review of “Hard Choices” by Sec. Clinton, “One of the few things this book shares with ‘Living History’ is its emphasis on Mrs. Clinton as someone capable of growth and change: an individual who says she learns from past mistakes like her 2002 vote to authorize military action in Iraq. (She ‘got it wrong,’ she writes of that vote. ‘Plain and simple.’) ‘Hard Choices’ seems meant to serve several purposes at once: to document Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state; to put her dysfunctional 2008 presidential campaign in the rearview mirror; to supplant memories of her tumultuous days as first lady (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky) with images of her negotiating with leaders on the world stage; and to lift her above the partisan mudslinging of Washington.” [“Hard Choices”, New York Times Book Review, 6/7/14]
BBC’s Kim Ghattas, on “Hard Choices”: “You can read her new book, Hard Choices, as a proto-campaign document if you like, but it also spells out her vision for America’s role in the world.” According to Kim Ghattas, writer of “The Secretary,” in The Daily Beast, regarding Sec. Clinton, “You probably think she’ll run because she wants to be the first woman president, or because she has a clear domestic-policy agenda around the issues with which she’s been associated for decades. Certainly, both of those things are true. But I’m here to tell you, as one who covered her every day for four years when she was secretary of state, that America’s place in the world now concerns her at least as much as those other considerations and probably more. And it’s only as commander-in-chief of the United States can she have any real influence on the issue that matters to her most: America’s power and prestige. You can read her new book, ‘Hard Choices,’ as a proto-campaign document if you like, but it also spells out her vision for America’s role in the world.” [Kim Ghattas, The Daily Beast, 6/9/14]
LA Times book review: “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ makes for compelling reading.” According to Robin Abcarian’s review of “Hard Choices” for the Los Angeles Times, “She hasn’t decided yet. Or if she has, she’s not telling. But if Hillary Rodham Clinton does run for president in 2016, her new book ‘Hard Choices,’ a chronicle of her four years as secretary of State, leaves no room for doubt about how she might conduct foreign policy (pragmatically), how she will defend herself against charges that she mishandled the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya (robustly) and about how much she regrets giving President George W. Bush carte blanche to wage war against Iraq (deeply and eternally).” [“Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ makes for compelling reading”, Jacket Copy, Los Angeles Times, 6/10/14]
LA Times book review: “’Hard Choices’ is a richly detailed and compelling chronicle of Clinton’s role in the foreign initiatives and crises that defined the first term of the Obama administration.” According to Robin Abcarian’s review of “Hard Choices” for the Los Angeles Times, “’Hard Choices’ is a richly detailed and compelling chronicle of Clinton’s role in the foreign initiatives and crises that defined the first term of the Obama administration — the pivot to Asia, the Afghanistan surge of 2009, the ‘reset’ with Russia, the Arab Spring, the ‘wicked problem’ of Syria — told from the point of view of a policy wonk.” [“Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ makes for compelling reading”, Jacket Copy, Los Angeles Times, 6/10/14]
Time’s Charlotte Alter, on “Hard Choices”: Who knew Hillary could be so hill-arious? According to Time’s Charlotte Alter’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “Hillary comes off as smart, tough, and kind of… cool. …Her new book Hard Choices isn’t as dour as the title suggests or as long and boring as it looks. It’s actually really funny. It probably would sell better if it were called something like Richard Holbrook Wore Yellow Pajamas or Are You There, Angela Merkel? It’s Me, Hillary, but neither of those titles sound quite as presidential.” [Charlotte Alter, Time, 6/11/2014]
Entertainment Weekly’s Tina Jordan, on “Hard Choices”: “A rich and lively narrative of Clinton’s foreign policy successes, and failures.” According to Entertainment Weekly’s book review of “Hard Choices”, “Clinton spent four years hopscotching the globe, and the book’s structure aligns with the number of trips it can take to resolve — or attempt to resolve — a diplomatic crisis. So you can read the sections on Asia and come away with a much clearer understanding of, say, the territorial scuffling over the South China Sea and its importance to the U.S. Clinton seizes wonkish topics and shows how diplomacy actually works — the phone calls, the endless meetings in dreary conference rooms, the bargaining and back-channel negotiations…. a rich and lively narrative of Clinton’s foreign policy successes, and failures. B+.” [Tina Jordan, Entertainment Weekly, 6/11/14]
Toronto Star: “At the beginning of her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton saw as one of her main priorities rebuilding America’s tattered reputation after years of George Bush’s bellicose unilateralism. And she succeeded.” “So does Hard Choices work as a calling card for the most important job in the world? I’d say so. At the beginning of her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton saw as one of her main priorities rebuilding America’s tattered reputation after years of George Bush’s bellicose unilateralism. And she succeeded. America’s approval rating in the world has spiked. And Mrs. Clinton has become the poster girl for the deployment of what’s termed “smart power,” i.e., using all of America’s considerable societal assets — cultural, economic, technological — to achieve America’s strategic goals. Post-Iraq and -Afghanistan, America seems weary of having the Pentagon doing all the heavy lifting. And Hillary captured that mood, completely.” [Toronto Star, ‘Hard Choices by Hillary Rodham Clinton: Review,’ Robert Collison, 6/17/14]
The popular reception:
CNN reporter: “There are roughly 380 people in line at Clinton’s first book signing in New York.” According to a tweet by CNN’s Dan Merica, “There are roughly 380 people in line at Clinton’s first book signing in New York, reports CNN’s Yon Pomrenze. Rules are tight for the event.” [Dan Merica, @danmericaCNN, 6/10/14]
Politico’s media reporter: “Three weeks ago I wrote that Hillary chose ABC b/c Diane Sawyer ‘promised to be a softer interview.’ I was dead wrong.” Politico’s Media reporter Dylan Byers tweeted, “Three weeks ago I wrote that Hillary chose ABC b/c Diane Sawyer ‘promised to be a softer interview.’ I was dead wrong.” [Dylan Byers, @DylanByers, Twitter, 6/9/14]
NYT’s reporter, on Sec. Clinton’s first book signing for “Hard Choices”: “Lines around the block for Hillary Clinton book signing.” NYT’s Amy Chozick tweeted, “Lines around the block for Hillary Clinton book signing pic.twitter.com/tyQ05TMFDc.” [6/10/14, 9:18 a.m. EDT]
Sec. Clinton: Five Taliban prisoners “are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
INTERVIEWER: “I think an awful lot of people think that we’re less safe today than we were a week ago because these five guys are out.”
SEC. CLINTON: “These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them.” [NBC’s Today Show, 6/11/14 (Via Nexis)]
WSJ: “Officials Predicted Detainees in Bowe Bergdahl Swap Would Rejoin Taliban.” “Before the U.S. transferred five Afghan Taliban detainees to secure the freedom of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, American intelligence officials predicted that two of the men would return to senior positions with the militant group, according to U.S. officials. The classified assessment, a consensus of spy agencies compiled during the prisoner-swap deliberations, said two others of the five were likely to assume active roles within the Taliban, while only one of the five released detainees was considered likely to end active participation in the group’s effort to undermine the elected government of Afghanistan.” [‘Officials Predicted Detainees in Bowe Bergdahl Swap Would Rejoin Taliban,’ Wall Street Journal, 6/10/14]
FACT: Sec. Clinton did not defend Assad and referenced the opinion of others in labeling him as a reformer. According to Politifact’s Pundifact, “So Clinton did refer to Assad as ‘a reformer.’ But she crafted the line as the opinion of ‘members of Congress of both parties,’ not her opinion. And she never defended (as [Chris]Wallace said) Assad, instead saying in that interview that he ‘exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.’ Still, Clinton’s comments were widely reported and criticized… Criticizing parts of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, Wallace said Clinton ‘defended Syria’s President Assad as a possible reformer at the start of that country’s civil war.’ Clinton’s original comments in March 2011 were not that straightforward. The statement in question was actually, ‘Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.’ Clinton was talking about the beliefs of Congress and didn’t ‘defend’ Assad, as Wallace put it, instead saying that the use of force that he deployed was more ‘than any of us would want to see.’” [PunditFact, Politifact, 6/1/14]
FACT: Sec. Clinton said Syria’s Assad was “not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.” According to a Congressional Research Service report for Congress, “In the wake of the embassy incident, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made the strongest declaration yet against the Asad government. In part seeking to respond to speculation that the United States wants the Asad regime to remain in power, she stated that: ‘From our perspective, he has lost legitimacy…. If anyone, including President Assad, thinks the United States is secretly hoping that the regime will emerge from the turmoil to continue its brutality and repression, they are wrong. President Assad is not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.’” [“Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions Against the Asad Regime,” Congressional Research Service, state.gov, 8/9/11]
FACT: Sec. Clinton understood that “America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks entitled Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, “We start from a simple premise: America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region; and the future of this region depends on America. The United States has a strong interest in continuing its tradition of economic and strategic leadership, and Asia has a strong interest in the United States remaining a dynamic economic partner and a stabilizing military influence.” [Remarks on Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, 1/12/10]
FACT: Sec. Clinton improved and expanded U.S. relations in the region by holding the “first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks entitled Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, “For these reasons and more, we began last January to lay the foundation for a revitalized Asia-Pacific relationship. My first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia – in fact, this will be my fourth to the region in the last eleven months. President Obama participated in the APEC Summit in Singapore as well as visiting China, Japan, and South Korea; we supported the creation of a regular G-20 leaders summit with strong Asian participation reflecting the new global balance of financial and political power; we held the first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit; we signed the Guam International Agreement that helps sustain a strong U.S. military presence in the region; and we signed the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. And it was no accident that the first state visit hosted by President and Mrs. Obama was for an Asian leader, Indian Prime Minister Singh.” [Remarks on Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, 1/12/10]
FACT: Under Sec. Clinton, the U.S. “climbed out of the hole we found ourselves in at the beginning of the administration and reasserted America’s presence in the region.” In her book Hard Choices, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote, “When we started in 2009, many in the region doubted our commitment and our staying power. Some in China sought to take advantage of that perception. Our pivot strategy was designed to dispel those doubts. During one long discussion with Dai, he exclaimed, ‘Why don’t you ‘pivot’ out of here?’ I had logged more miles and sat through more awkwardly translated diplomatic speeches than I imagined possible. But it paid off. We had climbed out of the hole we found ourselves in at the beginning of the administration and reasserted America’s presence in the region.” [Hard Choices, pg. 79, 2014]
FACT: Sec. Clinton improved relations with China and, along with President Obama “laid the groundwork for a solid, wide-ranging relationship with their rival.” “For Clinton, the Chen Guangcheng affair and its resolution epitomized what she and Obama had set out to achieve at the start of the administration. They had methodically laid the groundwork for a solid, wide-ranging relationship with their rival, the kind that should be able to sustain the blow of a crisis— and it did. The S& ED [annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue] concluded as planned and Beijing pursued its relationship with Washington almost as before, except for a few expected strident comments.” [The Secretary, Kim Ghattas, 2013]
FACT: Sec. Clinton called on the Egyptian government “to implement political, economic, and social reforms” in response to the Egyptian people. In remarks after meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh at the State Department, Secretary Clinton said, “Before I talk about our meeting today, I want to say a word about the protests taking place in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. As we monitor this situation carefully, we call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence. We support the universal rights of the Egyptian people, including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. And we urge the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media sites. We believe strongly that the Egyptian Government has an important opportunity at this moment in time to implement political, economic, and social reforms to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people. The United States is committed to working with Egypt and with the Egyptian people to advance such goals.” [DipNote blog, state.gov, 1/26/11]
FACT: Sec. Clinton told the Human Rights Council that the U.S. stood ready to assist Egypt, “however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks at the Human Rights Council, “That is why, as we watch what is happening in Egypt, we hope that there will be a broad array of opposition voices and representatives to ensure that the reform process is inclusive. We want to see concrete steps taken, including enacting constitutional reforms and releasing political detainees and lifting the state of emergency. The United States stands ready to assist, however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.” [Remarks at the Human Rights Council, state.gov, 2/28/11]
FACT: Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.”
FACT: Sec. Clinton worked with Senate and House sponsors to push Iran sanctions bills into conference. According to HRC: State Secrets by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, “In June [Secretary Clinton] invited [House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman] Howard Berman and [Senate Banking Committee chairman] Chris Dodd up to a conference room on the seventh floor of the State Department to discuss a pending bill intended to punish Iran by sanctioning foreign companies that did business in the petroleum and banking sectors there. The basic concept was to force other countries to pull out of Iran and thus cripple its economy, which might persuade the Iranians to negotiate an end to their pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for the removal of sanctions… Each man had passed a version of a bill called the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act, or CISADA, through his respective chamber with little or no opposition. Berman and Dodd had written slightly different bills, and they had had to convene a conference committee of House and Senate members to sort out their differences and send the bill to the president for his signature or veto. But in reality, the work of the conference committee was now being done by Hillary, Berman, and Dodd on the seventh floor because the White House had serious concerns about the consequences of the congressional approach; and with Democrats in control of both chambers and the presidency, Berman and Dodd wanted to find a path that would avoid an ugly showdown between the White House and Congress.” [HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, pg. 186]
FACT: Secretary Clinton was clear-eyed when it came to President Putin and understood the opportunity presented to achieve critical goals during Medvedev’s tenure. In 2010, the Carnegie Endowment issued a report on U.S.-Russia relations. It said, “Having fallen to a historic low after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, U.S.-Russiacooperation is again on the rise, thanks to last year’s ‘reset’ of the relationship.” The report goes on to say, “The improved tone in U.S.-Russia relations is itself an important accomplishment of the reset.” During her tenure, Secretary Clinton worked successfully to secure Russia’s cooperation in anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, reaching a historic “lethal transit” agreement, allowing U.S. military planes to transport lethal materials over Russia to Afghanistan.
FACT: Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition (that included Russia) to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean recently told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.”
FACT: While Secretary Clinton made progress with Russia, including the New START treaty and cooperation on Iran and Afghanistan, she refused to defend Russia’s policies when they clashed with our own. When Russia and China used their veto to block U.N. action against Syria, she said, “It’s quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto when people are being murdered, women, children, brave young men. Houses are being destroyed. It is just despicable. And I ask, whose side are they on?” [ABC News, 2/24/12]
FACT: Hard Choices: “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” “‘There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,’ she writes. ‘It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,1/15/14, page 41]
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “The IC’s [intelligence community’s] preliminary conclusion was that there had been a protest outside of the mission prior to the attack, making this assessment based on open source news reports and on other information available to intelligence agencies.” [Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 12/30/12, page 28]
FACT: On September 12, 2012, Clinton said the “assault” was committed by “heavily armed militants.” In remarks following the attacks in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton stated: “Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed… We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.” [Secretary Clinton remarks, 9/12/12]
FACT: The State Department took action against Boko Haram. Under Secretary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department took action against the group by designating three of Boko Haram’s top leaders as foreign terrorists. [Reuters 6/21/12]
FACT: Sec. Clinton spoke out against Boko Haram. Secretary Clinton has spoken out against their mission, tweeting on Sunday, “Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism.” Using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, Hillary Clinton and her tweet have been credited with raising awareness about the kidnappings. [Politico, 5/7/14]
FACT: Concerns were raised about designating Boko Haram a terrorist group. Concerns were raised at the time by many – including Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, the International Crisis Group, and more than twenty experts on Nigeria and the region – that designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization could “raise its profile” and “help in its recruitment.” [Reuters, 6/21/12; BBC, 5/7/14; The Hill, 5/11/14]
FACT: Experts were concerned designation would prevent efforts. Experts at the time were concerned that designation as a terrorist organization would have prevented coordination with Nigerian Security forces collaborating on fighting extremists.
FACT: Bush’s ambassador to Nigeria didn’t think criticism of Sec. Clinton’s actions were fair. Even former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell, who was appointed by George W. Bush, came out in support of that decision, stating Sunday that it was the right thing to do at the time. Asked if the criticism against Secretary Clinton was fair, Campbell stated, “No I don’t think that’s fair, and along with a good many other Nigerian experts, at the time, we all opposed designation.” [Fox News, 5/11/14]
]]>This week the national Republican Party invoked its broken-record strategy, attacking Hillary Clinton during her national book tour with a series of recycled, previously debunked attacks. Like a broken record, the right wing keeps repeating the same bad tunes over and over again. In reality, these sour notes have been corrected multiple times over. Desperate to go on the offensive, the right is burning its credibility, knowingly repeating charges already disproven.
The right wing attacks Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, but she took responsibility, took action and has been transparent from the beginning. The RNC attacked Clinton for acknowledging in her book that it is inaccurate “to state that none of them [the attackers] were” influenced by an anti-Islamic online video, even though two Senate committees acknowledged as much when investigating the attacks. The RNC attacked Clinton for the Russian Reset, but Secretary Clinton was clear-eyed when it came to President Putin and understood the opportunity presented to achieve critical goals during Medvedev’s tenure. She built and maintained a coalition (that included Russia) to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Clinton made progress with Russia, including the New START treaty and cooperation on Iran and Afghanistan. She refused to defend Russia’s policies when they clashed with our own.
The RNC brazenly attacked that Clinton’s State Department “worked hard against” Iran sanctions. Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. She worked with Senate and House sponsors to push the Iran sanctions bills into conference. The RNC falsely claimed Clinton hesitated on Egypt. But in reality, Sec. Clinton called on the Egyptian government to implement political, economic, and social reforms in response to the Egyptian people. She told the Human Rights Council that the U.S. stood ready to assist Egypt, “however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.”
The broken record spun on the turntable again as the RNC claimed Clinton bungled relations with Asia. But in reality, she improved and expanded U.S. relations in the region by holding the first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit. Under her leadership, the U.S. reasserted America’s presence in the region. The RNC accused her of calling Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad “a reformer.” But in reality, Secretary Clinton did not defend Assad and referenced the opinion of others in labeling him as a reformer. In fact, Clinton said Syria’s Assad was “not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.
RNC Attack #1: Benghazi
RNC: Clinton Still Maintains That The YouTube Video Was “Indeed A Factor” In The Benghazi Attack
FACT: Hard Choices: “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” “‘There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,’ she writes. ‘It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “The IC’s [intelligence community’s] preliminary conclusion was that there had been a protest outside of the mission prior to the attack, making this assessment based on open source news reports and on other information available to intelligence agencies.” [Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 12/30/12, page 28]
FACT: On September 12, 2012, Clinton said the “assault” was committed by “heavily armed militants.” In remarks following the attacks in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton stated: “Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed… We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.” [Secretary Clinton remarks, 9/12/12]
RNC Attack #2: Russia
RNC: Sec. Clinton “‘Was The Face’ Of The Failed Russia Reset”
FACT: Secretary Clinton was clear-eyed when it came to President Putin and understood the opportunity presented to achieve critical goals during Medvedev’s tenure. In 2010, the Carnegie Endowment issued a report on U.S.-Russia relations. It said, “Having fallen to a historic low after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, U.S.-Russiacooperation is again on the rise, thanks to last year’s ‘reset’ of the relationship.” The report goes on to say, “The improved tone in U.S.-Russia relations is itself an important accomplishment of the reset.” During her tenure, Secretary Clinton worked successfully to secure Russia’s cooperation in anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, reaching a historic “lethal transit” agreement, allowing U.S. military planes to transport lethal materials over Russia to Afghanistan.
FACT: Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition (that included Russia) to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean recently told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.”
FACT: While Secretary Clinton made progress with Russia, including the New START treaty and cooperation on Iran and Afghanistan, she refused to defend Russia’s policies when they clashed with our own. When Russia and China used their veto to block U.N. action against Syria, she said, “It’s quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto when people are being murdered, women, children, brave young men. Houses are being destroyed. It is just despicable. And I ask, whose side are they on?” [ABC News, 2/24/12]
RNC ATTACK #3: IRAN
RNC: Clinton’s Own State Department “Worked Hard Against” Iran Sanctions Legislation
FACT: Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.”
FACT: Sec. Clinton worked with Senate and House sponsors to push Iran sanctions bills into conference. According to HRC: State Secrets by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, “In June [Secretary Clinton] invited [House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman] Howard Berman and [Senate Banking Committee chairman] Chris Dodd up to a conference room on the seventh floor of the State Department to discuss a pending bill intended to punish Iran by sanctioning foreign companies that did business in the petroleum and banking sectors there. The basic concept was to force other countries to pull out of Iran and thus cripple its economy, which might persuade the Iranians to negotiate an end to their pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for the removal of sanctions… Each man had passed a version of a bill called the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act, or CISADA, through his respective chamber with little or no opposition. Berman and Dodd had written slightly different bills, and they had had to convene a conference committee of House and Senate members to sort out their differences and send the bill to the president for his signature or veto. But in reality, the work of the conference committee was now being done by Hillary, Berman, and Dodd on the seventh floor because the White House had serious concerns about the consequences of the congressional approach; and with Democrats in control of both chambers and the presidency, Berman and Dodd wanted to find a path that would avoid an ugly showdown between the White House and Congress.” [HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, pg. 186]
RNC ATTACK #4: EGYPT
RNC: Clinton, At The Center Of The Crisis, Initially “Hesitated” When Then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s Rule Was Threatened
FACT: Sec. Clinton called on the Egyptian government “to implement political, economic, and social reforms” in response to the Egyptian people. In remarks after meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh at the State Department, Secretary Clinton said, “Before I talk about our meeting today, I want to say a word about the protests taking place in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. As we monitor this situation carefully, we call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence. We support the universal rights of the Egyptian people, including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. And we urge the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media sites. We believe strongly that the Egyptian Government has an important opportunity at this moment in time to implement political, economic, and social reforms to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people. The United States is committed to working with Egypt and with the Egyptian people to advance such goals.” [DipNote blog, state.gov, 1/26/11]
FACT: Sec. Clinton told the Human Rights Council that the U.S. stood ready to assist Egypt, “however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks at the Human Rights Council, “That is why, as we watch what is happening in Egypt, we hope that there will be a broad array of opposition voices and representatives to ensure that the reform process is inclusive. We want to see concrete steps taken, including enacting constitutional reforms and releasing political detainees and lifting the state of emergency. The United States stands ready to assist, however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.” [Remarks at the Human Rights Council, state.gov, 2/28/11]
RNC ATTACK #5: PIVOT TO ASIA
RNC: The “Much-Touted” Pivot Policy, Has Been “Bungled” And Frictions With China Are “Destined To Be Commonplace”
FACT: Sec. Clinton understood that “America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks entitled Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, “We start from a simple premise: America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region; and the future of this region depends on America. The United States has a strong interest in continuing its tradition of economic and strategic leadership, and Asia has a strong interest in the United States remaining a dynamic economic partner and a stabilizing military influence.” [Remarks on Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, 1/12/10]
FACT: Sec. Clinton improved and expanded U.S. relations in the region by holding the “first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks entitled Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, “For these reasons and more, we began last January to lay the foundation for a revitalized Asia-Pacific relationship. My first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia – in fact, this will be my fourth to the region in the last eleven months. President Obama participated in the APEC Summit in Singapore as well as visiting China, Japan, and South Korea; we supported the creation of a regular G-20 leaders summit with strong Asian participation reflecting the new global balance of financial and political power; we held the first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit; we signed the Guam International Agreement that helps sustain a strong U.S. military presence in the region; and we signed the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. And it was no accident that the first state visit hosted by President and Mrs. Obama was for an Asian leader, Indian Prime Minister Singh.” [Remarks on Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, 1/12/10]
FACT: Under Sec. Clinton, the U.S. “climbed out of the hole we found ourselves in at the beginning of the administration and reasserted America’s presence in the region.” In her book Hard Choices, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote, “When we started in 2009, many in the region doubted our commitment and our staying power. Some in China sought to take advantage of that perception. Our pivot strategy was designed to dispel those doubts. During one long discussion with Dai, he exclaimed, ‘Why don’t you ‘pivot’ out of here?’ I had logged more miles and sat through more awkwardly translated diplomatic speeches than I imagined possible. But it paid off. We had climbed out of the hole we found ourselves in at the beginning of the administration and reasserted America’s presence in the region.” [Hard Choices, pg. 79, 2014]
FACT: Sec. Clinton improved relations with China and, along with President Obama “laid the groundwork for a solid, wide-ranging relationship with their rival.” “For Clinton, the Chen Guangcheng affair and its resolution epitomized what she and Obama had set out to achieve at the start of the administration. They had methodically laid the groundwork for a solid, wide-ranging relationship with their rival, the kind that should be able to sustain the blow of a crisis— and it did. The S& ED [annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue] concluded as planned and Beijing pursued its relationship with Washington almost as before, except for a few expected strident comments.” [The Secretary, Kim Ghattas, 2013]
RNC ATTACK #6: SYRIA
RNC: And It Was Clinton Who Called Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad “A Reformer”
FACT: Sec. Clinton did not defend Assad and referenced the opinion of others in labeling him as a reformer. According to Politifact’s Pundifact, “So Clinton did refer to Assad as ‘a reformer.’ But she crafted the line as the opinion of ‘members of Congress of both parties,’ not her opinion. And she never defended (as [Chris]Wallace said) Assad, instead saying in that interview that he ‘exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.’ Still, Clinton’s comments were widely reported and criticized… Criticizing parts of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, Wallace said Clinton ‘defended Syria’s President Assad as a possible reformer at the start of that country’s civil war.’ Clinton’s original comments in March 2011 were not that straightforward. The statement in question was actually, ‘Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.’ Clinton was talking about the beliefs of Congress and didn’t ‘defend’ Assad, as Wallace put it, instead saying that the use of force that he deployed was more ‘than any of us would want to see.’” [PunditFact, Politifact, 6/1/14]
FACT: Sec. Clinton said Syria’s Assad was “not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.” According to a Congressional Research Service report for Congress, “In the wake of the embassy incident, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made the strongest declaration yet against the Asad government. In part seeking to respond to speculation that the United States wants the Asad regime to remain in power, she stated that: ‘From our perspective, he has lost legitimacy…. If anyone, including President Assad, thinks the United States is secretly hoping that the regime will emerge from the turmoil to continue its brutality and repression, they are wrong. President Assad is not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.’” [“Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions Against the Asad Regime,” Congressional Research Service, state.gov, 8/9/11]
]]>Definition:
An ability to remember some facts while apparently forgetting others, especially when they are inconvenient.
For their own political convenience, the right wing is ignoring all of the achievements Hillary Clinton made with Russia as Secretary of State, including her efforts to successfully secure Russia’s cooperation in anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, reaching a historic “lethal transit” agreement, allowing U.S. military planes to transport lethal materials over Russia to Afghanistan; her work with Russia to secure critical, crippling sanctions against Iran; and her role overseeing the passage and enactment of the New START Treaty reducing nuclear weapons and making us all safer.
]]>Clinton: “If there is an opportunity for him to consolidate the position of Russia in eastern Ukraine, he will look seriously at doing that.”
“Vladimir Putin will ‘look seriously’ at consolidating Russia’s position in eastern Ukraine if the opportunity presents itself, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday. Speaking in Florida, the potential Democratic presidential candidate said she was still in contact with some of her former government colleagues on the issue. And she believes the United States needs to support a ‘unified Ukraine’ with no division between the east and the west of that country. Many are struggling to come to grips with the rapid political upheaval that has unfolded there in recent days, after months of protests and last week’s bloody clashes between protesters and security forces. There is broad divide between those who support events in Kiev, where a new government is leaning toward the West, and those who back Russia’s continued influence in eastern and southern Ukraine. Clinton said Putin is a man who ‘sits as the absolute authority now in Russia and it is quite reminiscent of the kind of authority exercised in the past by Russian leaders, by the czars and their successor Communist leaders.’ On Ukraine, she said Putin could consider making a move. ‘I believe, and this is just my opinion, if there is an opportunity for him to consolidate the position of Russia in eastern Ukraine, he will look seriously at doing that,’ she said. Speaking in Washington this week, Secretary of State John Kerry said officials were ‘deeply engaged in trying to help this extraordinary transition that is taking place in Ukraine.’” [CNN, 2/26/14]
]]>