HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE SUPPORT ALL OF THIS? FIRST, YOU MAKE A FEW PEOPLE VERY WEALTHY TO LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL FOR YOU-----AND YOU MAKE SURE MOST OF THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HECK THE GOALS ARE FOR NEO-LIBERALS LIKE CLINTON AND OBAMA.
The first thing to know about both Hillary and Bill is they are Arkansas Republicans from an early age. Bill is seen in pictures with George Wallace and a very young Bush Sr in Kennebunkport in the 1980s no doubt strategizing how to get rid of all the New Deal, War on Poverty, and civil, labor, women's, disabled rights of the 1960s and 70s. The answer for Republicans was to run as Democrats to kill all this progressivism. OUT CAME SAXOPHONE PLAYING, COOL BILL CLINTON. You say any young voter joining a Goldwater campaign does not make her Republican for life----I say----
BUT SHE IS REPUBLICAN FOR LIFE.....SHE WENT FURTHER RIGHT AND IS NOW A GLOBAL LIBERTARIAN NEO-LIBERAL.
Fascism is easy to describe because it involves the very same stages of development ----below you see the threats of terrorism and the movement of religion to more conservative stances. The only threat to terrorism comes from US global markets making the world mad as heck at America and Hillary is the mother of US global markets. I shared my view of the new PEOPLE'S POPE----FRANCIS----giving information that shows he hails from a very neo-liberal, militarized, conservative Catholic Argentina---VOILA---ALL THE ELEMENTS. Bush neo-cons and Clinton neo-liberals together are a far-right global corporate tribunal. The article below shows the growing international military actions by the US as well as militarized community policing in our US cities as movement towards fascism. Hillary attended Yale----the neo-conservative Ivy League to Bill's Harvard----the neo-liberal Ivy League at the time all of this America as an International Economic Zone policy was unfolding----
SKULL AND BONES FOLKS!
'So the old Hillary Clinton who was drawn to Barry Goldwater has finally shown her colors. Although Goldwater would likely have lost to Johnson, the public then was mindful of what was at stake, and the famed Daisy ad is attributed with increasing Johnson’s margin of victory':
Hillary Clinton: The Goldwater Girl Reveals Herself in an Atlantic Interview
Posted on August 11, 2014 by Yves Smith Naked Capitalism
As much as I was dutifully chugging along on a normal-NC-fare type of post, the fisticuffs that broke out in comments yesterday over America’s hypocritical and destructive foreign policies (340 comments, an unheard-of level for Links, particularly on a summer weekend), indicates that US war-mongering is the top concern of many readers.
It thus seemed more fitting to highlight a truly disconcerting interview of Hillary Clinton by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Altlantic, in which he came off as more temperate that Hillary. Here is why that alone is striking. From his Project S.H.A.M.E. profile (hat tip Lambert):
For the past decade, Jeffrey Goldberg has peddled blatantly false war propaganda with disastrous consequences, fronted for the military-industrial machine, played a key PR role pushing America into war with Iraq, and advanced the agenda of the Israeli military-intel establishment—but he has never had to account for his failures and his lies. Put another way: If Judith Miller was a dweeby Ivy League graduate who worked as a detention camp guard holding Palestinian prisoners, and she never had to answer for her journalistic fraud after being exposed, she would be Jeffrey Goldberg.
Ouch. And to match the Hillary Clinton/ Jeffrey Goldberg pairing, the New York Times gave us an Obama interview with Tom Friedman on the same topics: “Iraq, Putin, and Israel.” Some readers no doubt have a tougher constitution than I do; the Clinton pow-wow alone was tough to take.
What was striking about Hillary Clinton’s remarks, which to its credit, the Atlantic reproduced in full, was how often she depicted the US policy of aggression as morally desirable as well as necessary to protect Christians in the US from jihadis. Funny how the officialdom airbrushes out of the picture the fact that Osama Bin Laden explained the reason for his campaign against the US, and his overarching reason was “Because you attack us and continue to attack us.” I’m no supporter of Arab extremists, but the US has long meddled this region, with perilous little finesse or concern for the long-term ramifications. But it’s simpler for politicians like Hillary Clinton to narrow the frame so as to make those who oppose the US look like cartoon bad guys. Consider this section from her interview:
One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States. Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’être is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat.
The troubling part is this does not seem to be Clinton simply going macho to overcompensate for the stereotype that women and Democrats are soft on foreign policy; she really seems to believe it. The part of the interview that has been widely commented on is how she paints Obama as being too soft for failing to give more support early on to the rebels in Syria:
I know that the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.
Pray tell, why should we have expected to be more successful in Syria, in a fluid situation working through multiple interests, when we couldn’t build an effective army in Iraq when we had vastly more time, were dealing with comparatively stable organizations, and had much easier access (which meant among other things, it was much easier to deliver materiel and provide trainers of various sorts)? To put it bluntly, we lost the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan due to our inability to build a credible cadre of nationals who could manage the country. If we are incapable of doing that when we have soldiers on the ground and control key cities and resupply routes, how the hell could we possibly do that successfully in Syria?
And then we have the way-past-their-sell-by claims that the US is a force for good in the world. For the good of US corporations, maybe. For the American public and ordinary citizens elsewhere, our recent casualness about creating failed states is hardly the posture of a responsible imperialist. Here are some examples:
JG: Are we so egocentric, so Washington-centric, that we think that our decisions are dispositive? As secretary, did you learn more about the possibilities of American power or the limitations of American power?
HRC: Both, but it’s not just about American power. It’s American values that also happen to be universal values. If you have no political—small “p”—experience, it is really hard to go from a dictatorship to anything resembling what you and I would call democracy. That’s the lesson of Egypt. We didn’t invade Egypt. They did it themselves, and once they did it they looked around and didn’t know what they were supposed to do next.
I think we’ve learned about the limits of our power to spread freedom and democracy. That’s one of the big lessons out of Iraq. But we’ve also learned about the importance of our power, our influence, and our values appropriately deployed and explained.
Hillary tries to depict the antipathy in the American public for foreign misadventures as an overreaction. She paints her desire for more muscular US intervention as a middle ground between a alleged Bush overreach and an unseemly desire of Americans to tend to our own affairs first. But how does she deal with the fact that the US military is already overextended? Oh, she intends to use “smart power.” For instance:
What I’m arguing for is to take a hard look at what tools we have. Are they sufficient for the complex situations we’re going to face, or not? And what can we do to have better tools?
This reads like an effort to pretend that the emperor is not naked.
Hillary runs almost verbatim the standard defenses of Israel, but adds a new chestnut: that Hamas is better at PR. In other words, to the extent that the rest of the world isn’t buying what the US and Israel are selling, it’s because they’ve been snookered by better propagandists: “One issue is that we don’t even tell our own story very well these days.” Gee, as if the revelation that Israel knew it was making up the claim that Hamas was behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers went unnoticed abroad, or that the Israeli v. Palestinian death counts over time don’
And Hillary tries to pass off a ten month suspension of settlements as proof that Israel was serious about dealing in good faith with the Palestinians. Help me.
Hillary also presents Putin as an aggressor:
There are more demonstrations against Israel by an exponential amount than there are against Russia seizing part of Ukraine and shooting down a civilian airliner.
Huh? While Russia technically did annex Crimea, it came after a referendum showed that its citizens wanted to join Russia. This was not a military occupation, which is what “seizure implies,” this was exploiting an opportunity that the West stupidly handed to him on a silver platter. And as Lambert would put it, Hillary is way out over her skis in stating that Russia shot down MH17. Is she really that sloppy, or does she assume her audience isn’t paying much attention to the debate over what happened?
We get more Putin demonization:
Now the big mistake was thinking that, okay, the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space. Obviously, jihadi Islam is the prime example, but not the only example—the effort by Putin to restore his vision of Russian greatness is another.
It’s quite a trick to present Putin reacting to the US attempting to park NATO on its borders as Russia embarking on a program of expansionism.
So the old Hillary Clinton who was drawn to Barry Goldwater has finally shown her colors. Although Goldwater would likely have lost to Johnson, the public then was mindful of what was at stake, and the famed Daisy ad is attributed with increasing Johnson’s margin of victory:
Now that the fear of nuclear war has faded, the stakes apparently aren’t perceived to be as high. Yet the US desire to remake the strategic gameboard in the Middle East has succeeded instead in creating failed states and breeding more and more effective stateless opponents. Rather than recognize our errors, Hillary Clinton looks to be hell bent to double down on this foundering strategy and increase the intensity of its application with Russia. This sort of thinking apparently plays well in the Beltway and with ideologically aligned interlocutors. I can only hope the American public is smart enough to recognize how high the stakes are and remains skeptical of these appeals to break countries for the fun and profit of the military-surveillance complex.
Hillary pretends to support progressive candidates early on but as we see below-----she has since Bill's Presidency been very vocal and open about her love of Henry Kissinger and other right wing pols. She and Bill were sent to pose progressive just as Obama was while the national media gave she and Bill----and Obama all the cover of progressivism during Presidential elections.
Today---the mantra----WE ARE ALL LIBERTARIANS is the neo-liberal motto as Ayn Rand disciple Greenspan was a Clinton favorite! Hillary was right in there with Bill in pushing all the policies needed to have global corporations and markets end US anti-trust and monopoly laws with only a goal of empire-building and a few very rich people at the top.
THAT IS WHAT FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL LIBERTARIANISM LOOKS LIKE.....JUST ADD SOME CORPORATE MILITARIZED FASCISM TO GET THERE.
Below you see a good representation of where Hillary has always stood as regards the Democratic base of labor and justice----sadly, this was written during the Presidential race of 2008 when all of us thought Obama was a REAL progressive social democrat because he ran that way-----WHEN HE WAS REALLY THE SAME CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL THAT KILLED ALL THE POLICIES OF WHICH THIS AUTHOR WRITES
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Hillary Clinton and Barry Goldwater: Aligning Yourself with a Racist
by Dr. Boyce Watkins
Senator Barack Obama has sent Hillary Clinton’s camp into a panic. The Internet generation, with the wide accessibility of information, has put her image into a tailspin. The more we dig into Hillary’s past, the more clearly we can see what the Clinton’s have brought to Black America.
I also remain cautiously optimistic about Barack Obama, and only time will tell what kind of leader he will become. But my concerns about Hillary Clinton came a couple of years ago, during a conversation I had with one of her top advisors. Since I advocate for black males, the advisor asked me to help Senator Clinton round up African-American men who don’t normally vote so they could support the benevolent politician as she charged forward to The White House. Barack Obama didn’t yet exist, so the idea of actually having a black man representing black men was out of the question.
Quite honestly, the awkward conversation made me feel the way a Freshman sorority girl feels when the drunken, horny frat boy says “I will love you forever” (as he slowly unzips her pants). They wanted something from me, and my gut said that black men would move back down the priority list right after Senator Clinton’s crew had been satisfied.
Hillary Clinton wants votes. She knows how to get them. She wants to be President of the United States. Barack Obama has become a nuisance. Mrs. Clinton has wanted to be president since she was a child, even choosing the right husband to get the job done. I respect a focused person, I really do.
The problem is that Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have ridden to prosperity, in large part, on the backs of black people. These are the same black people who may or may not be aware of the Clinton path to political success. We see the Clintons in black churches, smacking on barbecue chicken, playing the saxophone with sun glasses and saying “You go girl” in the middle of their speeches. But looking at the Clintons’ past reveals something entirely different.
Hillary Clinton, when trying to prove that she is every bit as black as Barack Obama, often mentions her deep involvement with the Civil Rights Movement. She regularly speaks of listening to Martin Luther King and how it moved her to fight for racial equality. Barack Obama was a baby in 1963, so he was only fighting in the struggle against mandatory potty training.
In Hillary’s words, she was not being potty trained, but involving herself in a dogfight for African American freedom: “As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.”
If Senator Clinton was so deeply moved by Dr. Martin Luther King, then why was she so closely aligned with Senator Barry Goldwater, a known racist and one of the few Senators who opposed passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Martin Luther King gave his life to get this law passed, and it would seem that anyone so moved by King’s legacy would not be one of the greatest supporters of one of Martin Luther King’s greatest enemies.
The truth is this: In 1963, Hillary Clinton was a Republican. But knowing Hillary Clinton, she wasn’t just any Republican. She was President of the Young Republican Organization at Wellesley College and an overwhelming supporter of Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater did not like African Americans, and he especially hated Martin Luther King Jr.
In her memoirs, Hillary Clinton describes herself as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.'
OK. Perhaps there is some small chance that while attending his "radical" Islamic Kindergarten (the one that Hillary’s camp warned us about), Barack Obama was also Goldwater Girl. But I doubt it. A self-proclaimed “Goldwater Girl” doesn’t sound like someone who was standing with Dr. Martin Luther King in his fight for Civil Rights. When you align yourself with someone who is directly aligned AGAINST Martin Luther King, then I would argue that you are pretty much anti-King, and anti-Civil Rights.
The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton’s camp never thought Barack Obama would be a threat. She never expected African Americans to start asking the hard questions, since we usually ask the easy ones. Perhaps she felt that she could continue to deceive people of color and that none of us would ever actually read her memoirs. Barack Obama was sure to be similar to Jesse Jackson, who ran a very powerful campaign, but was not quite able to transcend race and obtain such overwhelming support from Americans of many backgrounds.
Even more telling is the fact that Hillary Clinton asked Wellesley College to seal her Senior Thesis and make it unavailable to the public. Every Senior Thesis written at Wellesley for the past 100 years has been made available, except for the one written by Senator Clinton. If we can question what Kindergarten Barack Obama attended, then perhaps we should have the right to read Hillary Clinton’s Senior Thesis. Maybe we can all learn to become “Goldwater Girls”, since that seems to be the best way to celebrate Martin Luther King’s legacy.
Last month, Barack Obama, still a black man (as he was in 1963), raised more money than any other presidential candidate in American history. The amount, $32 Million dollars, was so great that the Clinton camp refused to release its own numbers. This reminds me of episodes of Animal Planet, when the lion’s roar is so strong, the other animals just whimper, drop their heads and slowly walk away.
Clinton’s alliance with Goldwater is not just disturbing because of the racism. It also reminds us of the ruthlessness of many American politicians. When hearing the annoying bark of a nearby French poodle, Barry Goldwater yelled "Throw that damn dog in the incinerator and turn it on!" When asked who the dog belonged to, Goldwater replied, "No – my wife's. We're waiting for him to die."
These words might remind some of the morally reprehensible actions of Michael Vick. Instead, the words remind me of one of Goldwater’s staunchest, proudest and most ruthless supporters, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is a professor at Syracuse University and the author of "What if George Bush were a Black Man?" He does regular commentary in national media, including CNN, ESPN, CBS, BET and other networks. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com
THIS WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE BUSH/CLINTON LOVE AFFAIR WITH BANK FRAUD.
For those too young to remember the major Wall Street fraud before that during the decade of 2000s with subprime mortgage loan fraud leading the way----Whitewater was tied to Hillary as the Savings and Loan Crisis from massive fraud took the economy under Bush senior. Immediately, the Republicans were made out to be framing for political benefit the Clintons and their involvement but today we can see how Hillary's involvement as a lawyer in fixing fraudulent loan documents mirrors what occurred all through Bush Jr's terms in office. Hillary had the same disregard to law as did all the lawyers moving illegal subprime mortgage documents did.
She was let off the hook and her associates took the blame as always occurs as people move up in power----but Hillary and Bill made sure all those laws that brought down the Savings and Loan fraud were dismantled and ignored just so the financial frauds of the 2000s could soar.
Below we see the conditions for this crisis----inflated oil prices during a BUSH administration? What a surprise!
So, Bush Sr----just like Bush Jr----created the conditions for hyper-inflation changing financial laws so savings and loans were DEREGULATED and taking higher and higher risk----just as happened with the subprime mortgage fraud ALL WHILE PLAYING ON THE FDIC INSURANCE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT---SAME AS BUSH JR.
All the policies of TOO BIG TO FAIL----HAVING WALL STREET BANKS PAY ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF FRAUD WITH NO CRIMINAL CHARGES----came from this savings and loan hoist and the Bush family WAS involved as the President controlled policy and oversight. Hillary was involved in these frauds from her State of Arkansas and showed herself ready to lie, cheat, and steal for Wall Street.
'Madison was investigated, and put into conservatorship as insolvent after lending considerable money through Susan McDougal, James’s wife, to Whitewater and other development projects. Hillary Clinton, through her position at the Rose Law Firm, was the primary attorney preparing all the documents and signed them all (as well as billed her hours based on that work), although she later claimed that she did none of the work'.
'Ultimately, the failed Arkansas S&L would lead to Clinton’s impeachment in 1999'.
The article below is long---but please glance through to see the mirror image of what happened after Hillary and Bill's terms in office----same scam set to defraud Federal coffers all while FDIC laws covered losses from fraud.
In American History
Savings and Loan Crisis
When a trickle of failed savings and loan (S&L) institutions in the 1970s turned into a torrent by the end of the decade, blame was apportioned everywhere. More than a few prominent politicians found themselves implicated in the collapse—some through direct ownership, such as Neil Bush, the son of then-Vice-President George H.W. Bush—and some through investments “placed” by others, such as Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Before the scandal was over, five politicians were investigated on charges of peddling their influence on behalf of Charles Keating. Although none were indicted, the “Keating Five” sparked calls for renewed campaign finance laws.
The S&L crisis had its origins in the laws under which S&Ls operated. Early S&Ls were intended to finance mortgages, and to do that they needed a more stable deposit base than commercial banks (which made loans to individuals and businesses).
Congress therefore allowed S&Ls to pay slightly higher interest rates for deposits, but in turn restricted their lending, prohibiting them, for example, from having checking accounts or lending on consumer items, such as cars or appliances.
This strategy worked well for S&Ls in the 1950s and early 1960s, when interest rates were stable or moved slowly. As long as the S&L had a chance to adapt its new mortgage structure to higher interest rates over time, it could remain stable. What threatened the existence of the entire industry, however, was rapid inflation.
In the early 1970s, the combination of federal deficits, union wage increases, and oil price increases sent prices skyrocketing, reaching levels nearing “hyperinflation” by the end of the decade. To obtain funds, S&Ls had to pay increasingly higher interest on deposits.
After 1973, regulators permitted S&Ls to offer “Jumbo Certificates of Deposit.” But with their loans tied up in long-term (fifteen- to thirty-year) mortgages, the institutions experienced “disintermediation”—a term that describes a gap between the deposit interest paid and the loan interest received.
In short, the S&Ls were “selling” their product—their mortgages—for far less than they were paying for the money to finance new mortgages, and the long-term nature of the thirty-year fixed mortgages meant that there was no way for the S&Ls to adjust. “Variable rate” mortgages appeared, but that did nothing to address the immediate shortfalls.
Another factor, traced back to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, came into play. During the banking “reforms” of the Great Depression, Congress had established deposit insurance for banks (the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC) and for S&Ls (the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, or FSLIC).
These “corporations” provided government funds to insure depositors against losses in their accounts should the banks or S&Ls fail. (Many observers of the day had credited the creation of the FDIC with shoring up the banks in the 1930s, but in fact the key policy move involved Roosevelt’s decision to take the United States off the gold standard.)
No substantial runs had threatened either system since the 1930s, and thus little attention was paid to the “moral hazard” posed by, in essence, separating the welfare of the depositors from the health of the institution itself. Put another way, with the government insuring deposits, potentially corrupt bank managers or owners had an incentive to take risks they would not otherwise take.
Until the disintermediation crisis occurred, S&L owners and managers had no need to engage in particularly risky operations. But faced with a sudden shortfall in profits that could not be met through normal means, they pursued two avenues of escape.
One involved the time-tested appeal to Congress for special assistance. In 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Act expanded the power of S&Ls by allowing them to pursue investments aggressively in a variety of areas previously denied them, such as offering checking accounts. S&Ls, in short, were permitted to act like banks.
That did little to stop the hemor- rhaging, and between 1981 and 1982, the S&Ls lost between $11 and $12 billion. Worse, seeing that their customers were “protected” by deposit insurance, many S&L owners sought quick fixes by investing in highly speculative ventures, especially land.
Critics of the day claimed that the S&L industry’s collapse was tied to “junk bonds,” as in the case of Michael Milken and his placement of junk bonds with Columbia Savings and Loan in Beverly Hills.
A more important connection of wheeler-dealers came when Milken hooked up with Charles Keating of Cincinnati who received $119 million in Drexel Burnham Lambert–underwritten bonds to finance the American Continental Corporation, a real estate development firm that Keating tapped to purchase Lincoln Savings and Loan in Irvine, California. Keating then used the S&L money to purchase more junk bonds.
When these investments collapsed, Keating was investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the investigation, Keating met with five senators, John McCain (R-AZ), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), Alan Cranston (D-CA), and Don Riegle (D-MI), each of whom had received $1 million in campaign contributions from Keating.
The Senate Ethics Committee found that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had interfered with the investigation, but only Cranston was censured. (McCain later made a political career out of calling for “campaign finance reform”—after he had benefited from the largesse!) Lincoln lost $3.4 billion, and Keating served time in jail for fraud.
Despite these examples, most of the failed S&Ls had their money in land and development projects. The worst of these were “daisy chains,” in which one piece of speculative property was used as collateral for a loan at another S&L, whose loan was then used to purchase another piece of speculative land, and so on.
It was no surprise that the states with the largest numbers of S&L failures were those states with plenty of land yet to develop—Texas, Florida, California, and Arizona. After the government shut down the S&Ls in a series of acts aimed at dealing with the failed institutions, Uncle Sam acquired their land assets. Wisely, the government held on to most of the land and, over time, land values returned.
The “bill” for the S&L crisis was never as high as had been predicted in the 1980s (the Office of Management and Budget, in 1989, estimated $257 billion would be needed), although fixing a final cost of the debacle is still an exercise in futility depending on which dates are used.
Conspiracy literature attempting to link the “Reagan-Bush” administrations to the “looting” of the S&Ls claimed that the final tab would be $400 billion to $500 billion, an amount that is wildly exaggerated by any evidence provided from either the banking industry or the government.
From 1960 to 1990, the number of S&Ls fell from 6,000 to about 3,000, and even as conditions improved, the government changed both the examination procedures and the capital requirements, which further reduced the number of troubled institutions.
By the time the S&L debacle was over, well-known celebrities such as Keating, Milken, and several politicians had been investigated. President George Bush’s son, Neil, who was a director of Silverado Savings and Loan in Colorado, was the target of ethics charges for his defaults in that S&L, while his brother Jeb was loosely associated with Broward Savings and Loan in Florida.
Publications such as Mother Jones railed about the “involvement” of the Bushes, yet no evidence has yet shown them to have been directly involved in any malfeasance.
Quite different was the involvement of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the infamous “Whitewater” scandal, in which the Clintons, with Arkansas developer James McDougall, the owner of Madison Guaranty and Loan in Arkansas, purchased ownership in a development project called Whitewater.
Madison was investigated, and put into conservatorship as insolvent after lending considerable money through Susan McDougal, James’s wife, to Whitewater and other development projects. Hillary Clinton, through her position at the Rose Law Firm, was the primary attorney preparing all the documents and signed them all (as well as billed her hours based on that work), although she later claimed that she did none of the work.
By the time Bill Clinton became president, the Whitewater scandal demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor, Robert Fiske, who soon was replaced by Judge Kenneth Starr. Ultimately, the failed Arkansas S&L would lead to Clinton’s impeachment in 1999.
We all know Bill's propensity for fast and loose----what does that have to do with Hillary?
JUST HOW FAR DOES 'STAND BY YOUR MAN GO'?
Lots of conspiracy theory revolved around this string of sexual affairs but what matters is what the Clintons' lying did to people's lives. Most of what was revealed by these Arkansas State Troopers was found to be legitimate with ONE GREAT BIG COVERUP----another sign of a sociopath!
HILLARY DOES LOVE A PERSON ABLE TO JUMP INTO FRAUD AND CORRUPTION COVER-UP!
See her connection with Baltimore and Rawlings-Blake?
OTHER NEWS TO NOTE SOUTH
Ex-wife Of Co-defendant In Clinton Suit Kills Herself
May 14, 1994 Orlando Sentinel
LITTLE ROCK, ARK. — The former wife of an Arkansas state trooper who is a co-defendant with President Clinton in a sexual harassment lawsuit has committed suicide, Arkansas police said Friday. Kathy Ferguson, 38, was found Thursday in an apartment she shared with Bill Shelton, a policeman in the small town of Sherwood near Little Rock. Death was due to a gunshot wound to her right temple, officials said. Sources said a note found near the body suggested Ferguson's suicide was unconnected to the litigation involving Clinton and her former husband, Arkansas state policeman Danny Ferguson, who was a bodyguard to then-Gov. Bill Clinton. Paula Corbin Jones filed a $700,000 lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson May 6.
The answer is YES----there is no degree of separation. Global corporate tribunal rule brings the people's Democratic Party to Republicans giving WE THE PEOPLE no voice in politics---as these global pols like to say----THERE IS NO AMERICAN POLITICS.
Well, yes there is! WE THE PEOPLE can easily take back the people's Democratic Party and grow this strength at the state and local level
Is there a new member of the Bush family?
Sun Jan 29, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush says Bill Clinton has become so close to his father that the Democratic former president is like a member of the family.
Former President George Bush has worked with Clinton to raise money for victims of the Asian tsunami and the hurricane disaster along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Asked about his father and Clinton, Bush quipped, "Yes, he and my new brother."
"That's a good relationship. It's a fun relationship to watch," Bush said in an interview with CBS News broadcast on Sunday.
While attending Pope John Paul's funeral, Bush said, "It was fun to see the interplay between dad and Clinton. One of these days, I'll be a member of the ex-president's club. ... I'll be looking for something to do."
He said ex-presidents share rare experiences that others cannot understand. "And so I can understand why ex-presidents are able to put aside old differences," he said.
Bush said he checked in with Clinton occasionally.
"And you know, he says things that makes it obvious -- that makes it obvious to me that we're kind of, you know, on the same wavelength about the job of the presidency. Makes sense, after all, there's this kind of commonality," he said.
Bush jokingly referred to speculation that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president's wife, will seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency. He had earlier referred to the former first lady as "formidable."
"Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," he said, referring to how Bill Clinton had followed his father, and Hillary Clinton could follow him.