Thread: GOP operatives on the prowl for secret Clinton transcripts

GOP operatives on the prowl for secret Clinton transcripts



By Jonathan Swan - 05/09/16 06:00 AM EDT

Republican operatives are scouring the country for transcripts, notes or secret recordings of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Goldman Sachs in hopes of finding damaging material for the general election.

Clinton has rebuffed calls from Bernie Sanders to release the transcripts of her three speeches to the Wall Street giant, which she delivered in 2013 to the tune of $225,000 per appearance. She has repeatedly said she will release the transcripts of her paid speeches when all the presidential candidates agree to do so.

Republican opposition researchers have taken matters into their own hands, aggressively seeking any information about the speeches, including from Goldman employees who were in the room.

Ian Prior, the communications director for the well-funded Republican group American Crossroads, said information about the Goldman Sachs speeches could prove cataclysmic for the Democratic Party.

Finding and releasing the transcripts “would be a heck of a way to outflank Hillary on her left [in a general election] and stop Bernie’s supporters from voting for her,” he said.

“Just mail the Goldman Sachs transcripts to every Bernie supporter. There’s your targeted mail program right there."

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Her team has never disputed that Clinton, as part of her contracts for the speeches, required that they not be taped in any form. The contracts also stated that the transcriptions would be kept solely in her possession.

While the hunt for the transcripts is on, Republican operatives acknowledge they’ve come up empty so far.

Several employees at Goldman Sachs who attended one of the Clinton speeches have been helpful to Republican researchers, but all they can manage are “vague recollections” of what the former secretary of State said, a source familiar with the effort said.

And neither the Republican National Committee nor the top opposition research firm in the conservative universe, America Rising, has been able to get detailed notes from the three speeches, sources say. Nor have any the other Republican groups with the resources to look for them.

One GOP official familiar with the search expressed doubt that the transcripts will ever see the light of day.

Information about the Wall Street speeches "falls into the space of we believe it exists, but there’s no route to get to the information without Hillary Clinton releasing it herself."

"Efforts have been made," the official added, but "this is one of those situations" where high profile and potentially damaging documents might remain out of reach.

Sources involved in the search privately say that they are frustrated by how little they have found, given many of the Goldman employees in the audience would have had smartphones on which to take notes or shoot video of the former secretary of State.

“It’s as puzzling to us [that it hasn’t come out], as it is to you,” said one GOP strategist familiar with the Goldman Sachs search party.
“I won’t say it won’t come out at some point. It’s like a bomb that’s going to go off in the general election.”

Secret video of the Goldman speeches is a tantalizing prospect for Republicans, as they know from experience how damaging such material can be. Their last presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, was badly damaged by a secretly taped video released in 2012 where he said “47 percent” of voters would vote for President Obama because they are “dependent upon government.”

Political operatives in both parties speculate about what Clinton might have said to the bankers. Given that she was paid to deliver speeches, many suspect that she lavished praise on Wall Street.

Media outlets have unearthed some tantalizing clues. Politico has reported that, during one of the Goldman speeches, “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.”

In a 2016 Politico story, one attendee recalled that Clinton “was pretty glowing about us” and “sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director” than Sanders, her populist foe in the general election race.

The gossip mill was provided even more fuel by the co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski, who claimed in February that, “I know of a print reporter that has actual transcripts.”

Yet while Republican opposition researchers still occasionally mention Brzezinski’s tip, no story or transcript has materialized.

Republicans believe the Goldman Sachs speeches could be a big liability for Clinton this fall. Prior said the “strange” dynamics of the general election mean that the presumptive GOP nominee, Donald Trump, could attack her from the left as being too cozy with Wall Street.

"Secretary Clinton’s closed door speeches and fees are a persistent problem for her because they are emblematic of the unethical, untrustworthy public image Clinton has among a majority of voters,” Jeff Bechdel, America Rising PAC's communications director, told The Hill.

"Everyone knows the Clintons live at the nexus of money and politics, and nothing screams ‘unethical’ like secret speeches in exchange for enormous sums of money.”

Given the general election battle to come, the Goldman transcripts are also of enormous interest to Democrats, though no one in the party admits to have searched for them.

Meredith Kelly, national press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said, “The DCCC has made no effort to get a copy of these transcripts and views this as a total non-issue.”

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not respond to questions about the transcripts.

Justin Barasky, the spokesman for Clinton’s super-PAC, Priorities USA, had a simple response when asked whether the group had attempted or succeeded in obtaining the Goldman Sachs transcripts.

“No comment.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...on-transcripts

They can look for transcripts but won't find any.

Hillary, Bill and the companies that supposedly paid big bucks for speeches is a smoke screen!

They are all in cahoots together 'Pay to Play' scheme.

Let's just say we gave speeches but really didn't.

The Clinton's have to show the income came from legitimate sources as to not raise suspicion for Money Laundering.

As for the 'so-called' Clinton clients, they also need a clean paper trail as to not raise suspicion of Bribery.

And think about it for a second......

As bad as our relationships have been with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, African States, North Korea and list goes on and on.....

Why would anyone from these countries pay hundreds of thousands dollars to sit for 20 minutes to listen to the Clinton's?

These countries do not share the same values and have absolutely nothing in common with the U.S.

Apr 17, 2016 @ 08:07 PM

Why Did Congo Offer Clinton $650,000 For
Two Pics And A Speech?


Former US President Bill Clinton (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Richard Miniter
Contributor

I investigate foreign policy
and national security issues.

Congo, one of the poorest nations on Earth, offered former President Bill Clinton a speaking fee of $650,000–a sum equal to annual per-capita income of 2,813 Congolese. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund ranks the Democratic Republic of the Congo dead last in its global income rankings. What did it expect in return for its investment?

In the proposed 2012 contract, the organizers expected a speech and at least one photograph each with the leaders of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Congo, which appeared to be splitting the princely honorarium. (Since there are two nations known as Congo, in this article, unless otherwise specified, I am referring to the Democratic Republic of the Congo whenever I write “Congo” alone.) That doesn’t seem like much of a return, two snaps and a chat. So the question is: What else did Congo want for its money?

Congo’s extraordinary offer to Clinton first surfaced in a batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails released this past August, where it won little attention at the time. Newly leaked documents, known as the “Panama papers,” shed new light on the mystery as well as the misdoings of Congo’s corrupt rulers.

While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, America’s top official dealing with foreign leaders, former President Bill Clinton travelled the world giving speeches to world leaders and overseas interests–earning at least $48 million while his wife was America’s top diplomat. Why weren’t the payments to one Clinton not considered a bribe to the other Clinton?

Precisely to prevent this perception, the State department had to vet all of the international speeches of the former president. Thus, the foreign policy director at the Clinton Foundation, Amitabh Desai, emailed Clinton’s request to accept the $650,000 to a State department official, writing “WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] wants know what state thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation.”

This is a favorite camouflage of the Clintons. The money was destined for the non-profit Clinton Foundation, which is controlled by the Clintons and their daughter, where it would be used for healthcare, schooling and other good works. Using money to help your fellow man isn’t self-enrichment, they say. True, but beside the point. Giving money to charity doesn’t address whether that money was received as a bribe. To answer that key question, one would have to know what foreign leaders wanted in exchange for their donations. After all, Congolese leaders aren’t worried about charitable deductions on their U.S. tax forms. So why did they proffer so much of their poor country’s money?

Apparently Foggy Bottom nixed Clinton’s plans to travel to Congo as well as his request to give a paid speech in North Korea. In any event, he didn’t go. But the offer itself is the issue.

What could Congo President Joseph Kabila want? While the possibilities are endless, two seem most likely: he sought U.S. permission to ignore Congo’s constitution and stay in power beyond his two-term limit, which expires in 2016, and he wanted to shield his overseas assets from international investigators.
Bill and Hillary, especially when she was secretary of state, could be helpful on each count, if they wanted to be. Staying in power and keeping billions in shadowy gains would certainly be worth $650,000, if that was the deal that Kabila had in mind.

It is time for the Clintons and their foundation to disclose all of their communications with Kabila and his regime. How was the $650,000 sum arrived at? What did Congo want in return? Did the Clintons offer to provide any help with U.S., UN, EU or other international officials?

And, what about Kabila’s offshore accounts?

New evidence from the “Panama papers,” a massive trove of some 200,000 offshore companies incorporated by the law firm Mossack Fonseca, were leaked to the German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung and then to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. A dozen current or former national leaders, and more than 100 other elected officials from North American and European countries, have had their names found in this massive pile of purloined papers.

The twin sister of Congo President Joseph Kabila also appears in the “Panama papers” owning a shell company whose value may exceed $100 million. Kabila’s sister, Jaynet Kyungu, opened the company soon after her brother came to power. The initial directors were listed as Kalume Nyembwe Feruzi and “Ursula Kyungu,” which is a name Jaynet Kyungu sometimes uses in corporate records. Feruzi’s family reportedly have been close to the Kabila family since Laurent Desire Kabila, Joseph Kabila’s and Jaynet Kyungu’s father, was president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The shell company, Keratsu Holding Limited, was incorporated in the tiny South Pacific island country of Niue on June 19, 2001, five months after Joseph Kabila became president.

Keratsu Holding Limited soon fell behind on required corporate registration payments to the government of Niue–and had to make a series of revealing admissions. It submitted an “Application for Restoration” in 2010 which included an affidavit from Kabila’s co-owner, Kalume Nyembwe Feruzi: “I now need Keratsu Holding Limited restored and reinstated before the company’s assets can be realize[d].” An adviser to Feruzi explained to the law firm Mossack Fonseca: “[Feruzi] needs to receive dividends…” Undoubtedly, so did Kabila.

Where did these dividends come from? Partly from its 9.6% stake in Congo’s largest cell phone firm, Vodacom Congo Sprl, which in turn was estimated to be worth $1.5 billion in 2010. The shell company may well hold other corporate assets.

Kabila’s sister also owns a stake in Congo Digital, a subsidiary of the television and radio broadcasting company Multimedia Congo s.p.r.l.

It seems likely that she owns these assets partly because her twin brother is president of the Congo. Power is a family business among the Kabilas.

And among the Clintons. Consider the case of Lundin Mining. Lukas Lundin, a Swedish investor who founded the company, donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2007 and 2013. (The foundation only reports ranges, not exact amounts, for some of its donors.) Lundin Group pledged another $100 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a 2007 Clinton Foundation press release. Lundin Mining has substantial operations in the Congo. A partner of Lundin in its Congo operations, Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold, gave the Clinton Foundation as much as $500,000, according documents released by the foundation that present its contributions in the $250,000-$500,000 range. What did the mining giants get in return?

The State department, under Clinton’s leadership, entered into talks with the Congo in 2010 over its dispute with Lundin and Freeport-McMoran in what The Financial Times characterizes as “in support of Freeport.” Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer tells a similar tale. The result speaks for itself. Congo gave up its efforts to seize some of the world’s most lucrative copper mines from Lundin and his partners in exchange for increasing its share of the profits by less than 3%.

So what did Kabila expect in return for his proffered gift to the Clinton Foundation? Clearly, he had seen other businessmen in his country (like Lundin) prosper after their generosity with the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps it is a coincidence that one event followed the other? Either way, Kabila knew that a donation might be a good way to hedge his bets. After all, he knew about the allegations, during the Clinton presidency, that Clinton had traded overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom for campaign cash. Is the Clinton Foundation simply the same idea on a larger scale? One can see why Kabila, accustomed to the ways of a corrupt continent, might think so.

Now that Hillary Clinton seems on her way to cinching the Democratic Party nomination for president, it is time to ask: What does her namesake foundation owe to the foreign leaders and others who fund it?

Postscript: The last time I wrote about corruption in the Congo it reportedly led to Zoe Kabila, President Kabila’s younger brother, to allegedly beat unconscious Congo’s parliament speaker, Evariste Boshab in 2014. African press reports specifically mention that he was beaten due to a “Forbes article written by Richard Miniter.” The attack took place after Zoe Kabila and Kabila’s twin sister, Jaynet Kyungu, accused Evariste Boshab of having been an anonymous source for my article in Forbes. President Kabila was reportedly present during the abusive interrogation, which apparently took place on a farm he owns near Kinshasa. Afroamerica News describes its source for the beating story as an unnamed “official close to Rwandan President Paul Kagame.” For the record, the parliament speaker was not my source for that article nor is he among the sources for this one. This beating is just one more alleged injustice of the Kabila regime.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardm.../#8d324ee3f118