Caught On Tape: Stunned Reporter Grills State Department Why Hillary's Breaches Won't Be Investigated

Tyler Durden's picture

In the past several weeks, not a day has passed without a new scandal surfacing revealing Clinton's lack of judgment whether it involves her abuse of email protocol, or some previously undisclosed financial relation between either Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation and an outside donor. The most egregious revelation took place a few days ago when it emerged that the Democratic presidential candidate had breached her agreement with the White House to name all foundation donors during her tenure as secretary of state.

Specifically, as Reuters reported, Clinton had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat. "She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations."

In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.

The implication is that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns could and likely did curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name. The charities accepted new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria. And, of course, Ukraine.

The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations. In two instances, the charities said this was the result of "oversights"; for the other six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.

 

The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated list omitted donors to the foundation's flagship health initiative.

But the most shocking development took place yesterday when the US State Department, via spokesman Jeff Rathke, told reporters that while it "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, it does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.

"The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton's tenure," Rathke told reporters.

And while the objective, unbiased media would have been up in arms had this gross abuse of government privileges and clear pandering to foreign interests occurred under a Republican candidate, there has been barely a peep from said media as far as Hillary's involvement is concerned.

One person, however, did speak up: that was AP's Matt Lee who asked why the State Department wouldn't investigate further to determine if the tens of millions of dollars in donations had influenced her, and thus the US State Department's, decisions in the 2011-2013 period.

Rathke's response: there is no evidence that these donations to the Clinton charities had any effect on Clinton's decisions. “We’re not going to make a retroactive review on these cases and we will not make a retroactive judgment,” he said.

Of course, the circular logic involved is so twisted even hardened, conflicted government apparatchiks would not fail to recognize that there is no way to make a determination if said previously undisclosed donations had influenced her decisions without a further inquiry, an inquiry the State Department refuses to make because it assumes that it would find nothing.

Lee quickly noted this told Rathke that “the reason you are not aware of anything is because the building is refusing to go back and look at it to see if there is anything that might raise a flag."

What followed was 6 minutes of squirming that would make even the most hard-core Clinton supporter blush red with embarrassment at the farce and the corruption evident at every single level of government, especially when certain pre-approved (by Wall Street) candidates are involved.

The full exchange below.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
junction's picture

Hillary is too big to jail.

TeamDepends's picture

Well, these reptilians bleed like the rest of us, so there's that.

Newsboy's picture

Why won't you ask these questions, you don't want to know the answer to?

Comte de Saint Germain's picture

With the outcome already decided in favor of Mrs. Clinton in the next presidential elections, this type of nonsense is just focused on keeping entertained the brute and ignorant masses in America. Presidents in the US are selected, NOT elected.

Boston Tea Party (12/16/1773) = INSURANCE FRAUD

Anusocracy's picture

A read for the political season. This, along with the Moral Intuitions Theory, helps explain why libs and cons are libs and cons.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

J S Bach's picture

"...and the corruption evident at every single level of government, especially when certain pre-approved (by Wall Street) candidates are involved."

 

This is why the debt-based fiat monetary system has to be completely abolished and replaced with REAL money.  EVERYTHING in the form of corruption springs from this diabolical fount.

0b1knob's picture

Hillary is too big to jail.

< Hillary('s ass) is too big to (fit through the) jail (door).

NoDebt's picture

Nothing more fun than watching an AP "true believer" get just the slightest clue that maybe, just maybe, mind you, the people he thought were up for "the cause" were just lying, cheating bastards all along.  You can almost see his brain turn to jello inside his skull.

Not to worry, though, he'll never be invited back.  He's broken now.  

MonetaryApostate's picture

Let the Anarchist Judge tell you like it is....

(He got fired from Fox news for this video)

https://youtu.be/UgGnBCDfCLM

macholatte's picture

 

 

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning,"

Anusocracy:

Thanks for that.

I always believed that folks who claim to be a "life long" blah blah blah had lost the ability to think. Now I know they really are NUMB skulls.  This explains why so many in top .gov jobs work so hard to lie and deceive the public. 

We are so screwed.  There is no going back from this.

 

eatthebanksters's picture

Corzine will be her Veep candidate...

Handful of Dust's picture

Come on ZH'ers! Don't be so hard on the 'Everyday Policitians' ... he did say they be charitable organizashuns.

 

And, more impotently, the Laws dont apply to the Big Peoples.

 

It's ok, when their computers crash and all the data gone missing ... or somehow they axidently erased all the relevanet data ... or it be my 'oversight' ... or even if they said "the dog ate all the data" ... it's ok, there be no investigation 'cause they be the Big People.

Pinto Currency's picture

 

 

Why would anyone retroactively look into a break-in at, say, the Watergate Hotel or the shooting of JFK or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

When it's over, its over.

5 second rule.

mvsjcl's picture

Just like there's no need to look into the possibility that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers and Building 7 because, clearly, everyone can see that no explosives were used to bring down those buildings, and it would be a waste of time and resources to investigate such a blatant dead-end.

Arnold's picture

Wow.

 

 

I fully endorse Hillary for POTUS 2016

 

VinceFostersGhost's picture

 

 

Hillary, America's Queen.

smlbizman's picture

.....well at least they got that threatening tom brady.....i will get out from under my now, knowing my psi is within the 2 lb allowance...

willwork4food's picture

Nail guns will be flying off the shelves in DC this weekend.

remain calm's picture

Well this asshole knows that if he lies and has no morals he will get a better job. So he doesn't care about the truth or answering questions he only cares about himself. Fuck you and all of you in Washington DC that have no morals. May you die a miserable death, it the least you deserve.

espirit's picture

Somebody has to quote Hitlery on this ...

"What does it matter?"

(she wants a bigger dick than Putin)

AldousHuxley's picture

I'm 

Ready for

Oligarchy

"The choice is clear; there isn't one"

 

Bush Sr. 4 years + Bush Jr. 8 years + Clinton 8 years + Clinton 8 years = 28 years of oligarchy under two political dynasties.

Election is about

(1) Old money buying political power (republicans)

(2) politically powerful trading favors for money (democrats)

Arnold's picture

You ferget the current POTUS in your list?

Fail,

plus you need ten more items in your list to be anywhere near credible.ald

Dubaibanker's picture

You cannot endorse her. Because she has already been pre elected as the next US President.

Just like a Black President was ordained to be elected as the next US President right at the time of the second Bush's first win.

Similarly, right after Obama's election, it has been pre ordained on the American (re)public that the next President would be a woman and unless Liz Warren wins, it will be Hillary (from the Clinton dynasty).

VinceFostersGhost's picture

 

 

 

Ba da bing, and there you go.

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

Anyone who truly looks at 9/11 can readily see that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition (CD). WTC7 is the smoking gun. No plane flew into it. 48 storey steel frame buildings do not collapse into their own footprint in 6.5 seconds (no resistance/ gravity free fall) due to sporadic office fires I.e. burning office chairs, desks, carpet tiles, wall partitions, lightweight doors, paper, lever arch folders, plastic pens etc.

WTC7 could only have been brought down by CD. Meaning that a highly competent team spent several weeks studying the building design, calculating the CD requirements and then installing the explosives, detonators and wires/ comms system.

This means that the attack events of the day were known well in advance of 9/11and were prepared to ensure maximum gain for those working to an agenda.

My opinion is not simply that of a so-called tin-foil hat wearing, bat shit crazy 'conspiracy theorist'. I am a chartered professional civil engineer with 25 years experience.

BoredRoom's picture
BoredRoom (not verified) Dame Ednas Possum May 9, 2015 7:21 AM

Why does the Chosenite media treat members of the two major parties so differently if "both parties are the same"?

 

Overfed's picture

Ever watch pro-wrestling? Faces and heels.

Gold Eyed Cat's picture

BoredRoom,

Generals and Globetrotters.

Generals are boring, play a straight game, and are ridiculed.  Globetrotters are exciting, break all the rules and are beloved.  They practice together, eat the same catered food, fly in the same chartered planes, and split the ticket sales.

 

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

To create the illusion of democracy and distract dopey people from the reality that the one snake has two heads... one blue, the other red.

The two heads are on this side of the curtain, the single body is on the other side of the curtain and obscured by smoke and mirrors.

shovelhead's picture

Yup.

It does offer some hard evidence via brainscan that cog dis of conflicting information is simply wished away rather than subject to logical examination.

I made a few lightbulbs go on at a recent family gathering where a casual conversation turned to the election cycle and the candidates.

The wife shot me the warning look (Don't go there) as I returned the 'Who me?' innocent thumb-twiddle (a noted cog dis instigator). While I was fiddling with a quarter on the table, my niece (Hillary girl) asked me what I thought. I flipped the coin and said "Does it really matter?" (No groans. I was disappointed.) and a thought hit me.

Sure it matters both sides assured me, so I explained with the coin.

"One coin with 2 images, both different, one can call opposing sides as in heads or tails. If we look at the coin in a two dimension framework, they are indeed different images. Reality however shows us we live in a 3 dimensional world. What happens if we view the coin in that 3rd dimension?"

With that I spun the coin on edge. "Looking at the coin in it's entirety, the differences become blurred when you reveal it's true 3D nature. Politics are exactly the same. They give you a coin, knowing that you'll set it on one side or the other and never discover it's true dimension."

From there, we were off to the races and I didn't have to hurt my hands hammering on heads.

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

I'd like everyone in the US facing a legal trial to put forth the same defence - the 'Hillary Defence'

"Your honour, this hearing is a 'Retroactive Review' and any judgement that might be bought against me is therefore a Retroactive one, therefore inadmissable "

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

What's this 'retroactive' bullshit word w.r.t. judgements?

ALL judgements are on past 'retro' events.

Investigations could hardly assess and pass judgement on future events...

For example it's not like the military of a country e.g. The Department of Attack could legitimately invade foreign countries pre-emptively on the basis of what they judge MIGHT happen... oh wait...

'Retroactive: (especially of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past.'

Is this muppet suggesting that the laws have changed in the U.S. w.r.t. 'democratically' elected holders of public office using their tax-advantaged registered charity to covertly take payments from private interest groups. Is this flunky suggesting that the morals and ethics of any such conflict of interest have been only recently established?

Absolutely stunning. The audacity of these people is simply breath taking.

rubiconsolutions's picture

I guess in "retrospect" Jeffrey Dahmer was simply embraicing the paleo diet.

Klemens's picture

Is asking questions a crime?  http://vho.org/Intro/GB/Flyer.html

Arnold's picture

Yup.

Pulitzer's are won that way.

Papers are sold the other way.

Why is Kimmi's ass so grotesque? is an example of a bad question.

Real Estate Geek's picture

No.  More than once I've seen that reporter 'call Bullshit.'  I think he enjoys the sport of fucking with flacks who're lying right to his face. 

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

Agreed.

I think he does extremely well to maintain his composure and repeat his questions diplomatically. The .gov sock puppet shill was like a deer in headlights; too stunned by legitimate questioning to maintain control of the situation. The worthless fool.

Full credits to the journo.

shovelhead's picture

Credit for his composure.

I would have been "Whoaaah Buddy. What the FUCK did you just say?"

It's probably why I was never tapped for the Diplomatic Corps.

willwork4food's picture

lol.

I think he knew he was playing with fire and likely would never be invited back at best and fired from his job at the worse.

He was stunned.

Arnold's picture

Journalists ask questions in public theater to ensure that their cars don't have fatal accidents with the Corpus contained there in.

cnmcdee's picture

This is not about Hillary this is about your very lives. 

That flesh bag of feces was knee deep in the killing of Ambassador Stevens who was going to bring down the entire arms shipments to jihadi snack bars.

Maybe we laudibly find this entertaining but if we let the entire whitehouse make edicts above the law there will be nothing left but the slaughters to come upon the American people by nazis in minority masks

cnmcdee's picture

And one last if she has accepted money repeatedly from foreign interests she may well have accepted direct funds from Russian interests the likes of Putiñ and Company.

That is not negligence that is TREASON.

So all you people in the NSA FBI DEA or whatever alphagetti soup agency you work for care about seeing your kids eat or gangs roving your neighborhood you better get a vested interest in getting these above the law whitehouse people held to accouñt for their lawless actions.

trulz4lulz's picture

Actually, this is big news is Russia. One of the "donations" was from a Russian uranium mining company. The company was owned by a US firm, but the Russians wanted to buy it, however there were some hurdles. So, they paid Hillary's State Department with a "charitable donation" and thus approved the sale of a uranium mine to the Russian company. I'll try and find the link, surprised it never showed up on ZH.

trulz4lulz's picture

There it is! Can't stayed glued to the .com, I still have basic job functions to perform!

shovelhead's picture

Putin's money is worse than anyone elses?

Bribery and buying influence has preferable time-zones?