Category Archives: Scandal

Hillary Clinton bagman speaks out, Lesbian affairs scandals, Lay to play, Bill stated she was bi sexual and “Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had”, Vince Foster affair, Rumors of affair between Hillary and Huma Abedin

Hillary Clinton bagman speaks out, Lesbian affairs scandals, Lay to play, Bill stated she was bi sexual and “Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had”, Vince Foster affair, Rumors of affair between Hillary and Huma Abedin

“The Clintons’ “systematically abuse women and others – sexually, physically, and psychologically – in their scramble for power and wealth,” says the book’s press release.”…”The Clintons’ War on Women”

“Billy and Hillary Clinton continue to be lying, cheating, manipulative, scratching, clawing, ruthlessly aggressive, insatiably ambitious politicians who are giving public service a bad name – and nothing about them has changed in the past forty-plus years, except that they have deluded more and more people,”…Dolly Kyle Browning

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion


Is this what Drudge was warning about?

There are no surprises with the Clintons.

Everything is well documented for those who care.

The Clintons’ open marriage, numerous infidelities and criminal behaviours in threats and coverups are too.

From the National Enquirer October 19, 2016.

“Confessions Of A Clinton Bagman — In His Own Words
‘Why I’m coming forward now!'”

“During the 1980s and 1990s, I was working in Hollywood as a reporter for several national magazines and newspapers. Because of my good relationship with stars, publicists and the press I became “a fixer”: someone who helps stars keep embarrassing stories out of the press. I helped keep secrets safe for some of Hollywood’s leading men.

In 1991, my reputation was such that I was asked to work on behalf of a fast-rising figure on the national stage: Arkansas Gov. William Jefferson Clinton. I attended a meeting in Hollywood where I was told by an intermediary: “There will be a lot of stories coming out in the tabloid press. We want them buried.”

I was informed that these stories would involve rumors of Bill Clinton‘s many sexual dalliances and an alleged ongoing affair of Hillary Clinton with a male member of her law firm, Vince Foster, as well as a female mover-and-shaker in Hollywood.

For a retainer of $4,000 a month — paid by a third party, not the campaign — I was told to keep these stories hush-hush in one of two ways: by trading access to the Clintons for “positive” interviews, or by paying the reporters.

The payments were always cash, usually delivered in a movie theater or restaurant on Sunset Boulevard, and came in two denominations: $100 for a heads-up that a bad story was coming; or considerably more to kill the piece.”

“The gravest example of a Clintonian lack of judgment occurred in March 1994. Presidential brother Roger Clinton was marrying his eight-months-pregnant bride Molly. There was a bachelor party. Prostitutes were involved. Recordings were made. Recordings involving Bill Clinton.”

“Of course, we were not done. This was one of many in an endless string of sexual stories arising from what effectively was the Clintons’ open, polyamorous marriage.”

“I am coming forward now because of the endless attention the alleged indiscretions of Donald Trump have received. Nothing I have heard comes close to the sexual and moral corruption of the Clintons — many of which have yet to be revealed.

Predictably, the liberal media is focusing on one man’s alleged misdeeds and ignoring another’s proven sins.

I mention some of these here and now because we have only two serious candidates for the presidency. In the few weeks remaining until the election, we should not be weighing whose corruption is worse (the Clintons win by a landslide, if all were to be told), but who has the best ideas and leadership skills to become president of the United States.”

Confessions Of A Clinton Bagman — In His Own Words

From the Daily Mail September 18, 2013.

When rumours surfaced recently of an affair between Hillary Clinton and her transition office chief, Huma Abedin, 37, Gennifer was not surprised.

The rumours concerning Huma, wife of disgraced former Mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, 49, emerged as she stood by her husband in the wake of his recent ‘sexting’ scandal.

Revelations that he had sent intimate pictures of himself and steamy messages to 23-year-old Sydney Leathers – a girl he had only ever ‘met’ online – finally did for his New York Mayoral campaign last week.

The scandal broke almost exactly a year after the shamed congressman suffered a public mauling for the same behaviour. Then, as recently, his wife Huma Abedin stood by him.

This time round Huma’s loyalty raised eyebrows and questions over why a woman of such accomplishment would stick by a man so apparently incapable of change.

Gennifer said: ‘I don’t know Huma or the Weiners. I just know what Bill told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexualand he didn’t care. He should know.

‘He said Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had.’”

There are volumes of evidence that support the above allegations, much in legal documents and many witnesses.

Many of the scrubbed articles I have resurrected substantiate as well. Not the least of which is Danney Williams position that he is Bill Clinton’s son. Danney’s mother was a prostitute.

More to come.


More here:



Hillary Clinton conceived plan to sell seats on Commerce Dept. trade missions in exchange for political contributions, Panetta and Podesta ordered Ron Brown to obstruct justice, Judicial Committee evidence, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

Hillary Clinton conceived plan to sell seats on Commerce Dept. trade missions in exchange for political contributions, Panetta and Podesta ordered Ron Brown to obstruct justice, Judicial Committee evidence, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

“This time, the Clintons use a reluctant Air Force and a nearly mutinous Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to bury Ron Brown as quickly as possible, literally and figuratively. They exploit Brown’s death for political advantage and leave the truth buried with him. Without an autopsy or a serious investigation, that is where it remains to this day.”…WND September 29, 2004

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion



The devil in the details in the White House

Hillary Clinton conceived the plan to sell seats on Commerce Dept. trade missions in exchange for political contributions as revealed by Judicial Watch and included in the House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record December 1998.




Transcript of October 5, 1998 presentations of David Schippers and Abbe
Lowell, and debate on H. Res. 581, beginning an impeachment inquiry.
Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, December 1998″

“Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to
insert the Judicial Watch Interim Report dated September 28,
Mr. Hyde. Without objection.”
“Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by
President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from
Elected Office”

“Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce
Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President
Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on
U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political
contributions. Bribery is specifically highlighted in the U.S.
Constitution as an offense warranting impeachment.

In President Clinton’s push to sell taxpayer-financed government
services to raise money for his political operations, national security
likely was breached by his Commerce Department appointees and those
involved in his fundraising scheme, such as John Huang. While Judicial
Watch is at an interim stage of investigation in this sensitive area,
the breaches of national security uncovered at the Clinton Commerce
Department raise real questions of treasonous activities by the
President and members of his Administration.

To cover-up this illegal fundraising and likely national security
breaches, President Clinton’s top two staffers, then-Chief of Staff
Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered late
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to obstruct justice and defy federal Court
orders. The evidence also indicates that Secretary Brown personally
consulted with President Clinton in furtherance of this cover-up.

In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services, such
as seats on government trade missions, for political contributions, the
President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies
directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of
legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they
have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and
foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to
U.S. national security interests.”

“After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of
Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with [late
Commerce Secretary] Ron [Brown], that the trade missions were
being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore
presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically,
Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to
donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to
participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron
expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the
Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at
the direction of The White House.

Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill, January 17, 1998
* * * * *
Question: You are aware, however, that Alexis Herman would
set up briefing sessions for participants that went on trade
missions before they went overseas? You were aware of that?
Nolanda Hill: I was.
Question: And at those briefing sessions appeared the
President and Vice President.
Nolanda Hill: I was told that by Secretary Brown.
* * * * *
Question: You’ve mentioned, to some extent–I’ll let your
testimony speak for itself–Harold Ickes. Anybody else? . . .
Nolanda Hill: Ultimately, [Ron Brown] believed that the
President of the United States was, at least tangentially.
Question: Involved?
Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir. It was his re-election that was at
Question: Ron believed that the President of the United
States knew the trade missions were being sold and their
purpose being perverted?
Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir.
Nolanda Butler Hill Court Testimony, March 23, 1998

In the Fall of 1994, Judicial Watch first became aware of evidence
that the Clinton Commerce Department was illegally selling seats on its
international trade missions in exchange for political
contributions.(133) Reports in Business Week and The Wall
Street Journal showed that there was a high incidence of Democratic
Party contributors on these taxpayer-financed trade

The fact that the President installed the former head of the
Democratic National Committee, Ronald H. Brown, as Commerce Secretary
also raised concerns about Clinton Commerce Department operations. When
Brown brought his entire DNC fundraising staff with him to Clinton
Commerce, these suspicions increased.

After Judicial Watch filed requests with the Clinton Commerce
Department for information regarding these trade missions under the
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), it was immediately stonewalled
and was forced to file a lawsuit in 1995 to obtain the requested
information.(135) Even after filing suit, the Clinton
Administration continued to stonewall.(136)

Over the next three (3) years, Judicial Watch, in its efforts to
uncover what the Clinton Commerce Department was hiding from the
American people, found substantial, compelling evidence that seats on
Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were indeed being sold in
exchange for campaign contributions, with the knowledge and complicity,
if not at the direction of, officials at the highest levels of the
Clinton White House, including the President, Hillary Rodham Clinton
and Vice President Al Gore. In addition, Judicial Watch’s attempts to
uncover the truth were obstructed through perjury, obstruction of
justice, intimidation and retaliation that has marred other recent
investigation of Clinton scandals, including the Paula Jones and Monica
Lewinsky matters. In short, the court process was obstructed by Clinton
appointees at his Commerce Department and elsewhere by:

Submission of false sworn declarations;
Destruction and shredding of evidence;
Improperly withholding documents contrary to Court
Threats and intimidation of witnesses and
investigators; and
Misconduct by Clinton Administration lawyers.

Nevertheless, Judicial Watch, through its investigations and the
legal discovery process, found “smoking gun” documents detailing the
sale the trade mission seats for campaign contributions in the files of
the Clinton White House, Clinton Commerce Department, and the DNC,

Memos from the Clinton White House files of Harold
Ickes and Alexis Herman showing that the $100,000 DNC Managing
Trustee Program included the sale of the Clinton Commerce
Department trade mission seats (among other government-financed
perks) and was designed to net President Clinton’s DNC
political operation $40 million; (137)

A brochure by the Democratic National Committee
showing that “foreign trade mission” seats were available for
$100,000 contributions to the DNC; (138)

A list of DNC minority donors found in the files of
a key Clinton Commerce Department Official; (139)

A Clinton Commerce Department memo indicating that
the DNC donors were input into the Commerce Department
government database;(140) and

A DNC memo showing that the DNC provided the names
of donors to the Clinton Commerce Department for trade missions
to Russia and Belgium.(141)

In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler
Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce
Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about
the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well
as the Clinton Administration’s efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch’s
lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill
that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government
services. With Ms. Hill’s uncontroverted testimony providing the
capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all
reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged
in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade
missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal
cover-up was ordered by President Clinton’s top aides to thwart
Judicial Watch’s Court-ordered investigation and to hide the
culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration
and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a
political fundraising vehicle.

Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony
implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.
Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms.
Hill explained that:

The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the
trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
The President knew of and approved this scheme;
The Vice President participated in this scheme;
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the
illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce

Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now
Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of
the Commerce trade mission seats;

The President’s top fundraisers at the DNC and his
reselection campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe)
helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in
exchange for political contributions;

Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy
Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these
activities; and

The President’s appointees at the Commerce
Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed
evidence, and likely breached our nation’s security.”

Commercegate Chinagate illegal sale of US Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for campaign contributions, Judiciary Committee evidence, Judicial Watch interim report on crimes and other offenses committed by President Bill Clinton, December 1998


More Here:

Hillary Clinton lies obstruction of justice documented in legal documents and NY Times article, Senate whitewater report, Independent counsel Robert W. Ray statement June 22, 2000, NY Times January 8, 1996 Hillary blizzard of lies

Hillary Clinton lies obstruction of justice documented in legal documents and NY Times article, Senate whitewater report, Independent counsel Robert W. Ray statement June 22, 2000, NY Times January 8, 1996 Hillary blizzard of lies

“Viewed in the aggregate, then, these numerous instances of
White House interference with several ongoing law enforcement investigations
amounted to far more than just aggressive lawyering
or political naivete. Rather, the Special Committee concludes that
the actions of these senior White House officials constitute a highly
improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.
Mrs. Clinton was closely involved in the handling of documents in
Mr. Foster’s office following his death and directed that investigators
be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to his office”…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001


Hard core Hillary Clinton supporters may not be swayed by her ever changing, poll reactive and politically expedient positions.

However, there is much documented about Hillary, the Clintons and the staffs they supervised and worked closely with.

For your edification and utter amazement I am providing some of this legal documentation.

Hillary Clinton has a well documented history of lying and obstruction of justice, long before she became Secretary of State.

From the NY Times June 23, 2000.

“Statement on Travel Office Inquiry

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Following is the statement today by the independent counsel Robert W. Ray on his investigation of the firings at the White House travel office in 1993:

The office of the independent counsel has concluded an investigation commonly known as the travel office matter. This matter concerned allegations that David Watkins, former assistant to the president for management and administration, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton made false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621, or obstructed justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, in connection with their statements and testimony concerning the May 19, 1993, firing of seven employees of the White House travel office. Independent counsel has concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Watkins or Mrs. Clinton made any knowingly false statements, committed perjury or obstructed justice in this matter.”

“In contrast to the cooperation received from the White House in the F.B.I. files investigation, concluded in March of this year, this office experienced substantial resistance in its efforts to obtain relevant evidence in the travel office matter.

For example, the White House asserted unfounded privileges that were later rejected in court.

White House officials also conducted inadequate searches for documents and failed to make timely production of documents, including relevant e-mails, in their possession.

Despite these and other obstacles that substantially delayed the receipt of relevant evidence by this office, the independent counsel has concluded that the investigation may now be closed.”

Read more:

From the Senate Whitewater investigation report June 13, 1996.

“Because the testimony of witnesses before the Special Committee
was often contradictory, incomplete, or inaccurate as to important
events and actions, the Committee placed particular emphasis on
available documentary evidence. Unfortunately, throughout its in
quiry, the Committee was hindered by parties unduly delaying the
production of, or withholding outright, documents critical to its investigation.
Although the White House was most often and most
notably engaged in this course of action, the pattern of noncooperation
extended to other parties, as this Report lays out more fully
in the Washington Phase of the Special Committee’s inquiry.”


“Against the backdrop of the death of a high-ranking U.S. official, this controversy has been fueled by a series of misguided actions taken by senior White House officials to shield the documents in Mr. Foster’s office from
independent career law enforcement investigators and to spirit the
documents to the White House Residence.
As Deputy Counsel to the President, Mr. Foster was the number
two lawyer in the White House. He worked on the most important
public issues faced by the new Clinton Administration. At the time
of his death, Mr. Foster also was one of the Clintons’ key advisors
on Whitewater and Travelgate.”

“After careful review of all the evidence, the Special Committee
concludes that senior White House officials, particularly members
of the Office of the White House Counsel, engaged in a pattern of
highly improper conduct in their handling of the documents in Mr.
Foster’s office following his death. These senior White House officials
deliberately prevented career law enforcement officers from
the Department of Justice and Park Police from fully investigating
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Foster’s death, including
whether he took his own life because of troubling matters involving
the President and Mrs. Clinton. At every turn, senior White House
officials prevented Justice Department and Park Police investigators
from examining the documents in Mr. Foster’s office, particularly
those relating to the Whitewater and Travelgate affairs then
under investigation.

This pattern of concealment and obstruction continues even to
the present day. The Special Committee concludes that senior
White House officials and other close Clinton associates were not
candid in their testimony before the Committee. Specifically, the
Committee concludes that Margaret Williams, Chief of Staff to the
First Lady, Susan Thomases, a New York attorney and close advisor
to Mrs. Clinton, Bernard Nussbaum, then-White House Counsel,
and Webster Hubbell, former Associate Attorney General and
now-convicted felon, all provided inaccurate and incomplete testimony
to the Committee in order to conceal Mrs. Clinton’s pivotal
role in the decisions surrounding the handling of Mr. Foster’s documents
following his death.
Finally, the Special Committee concludes that the misconduct
surrounding the handling of Mr. Foster’s documents is part of a
larger and more troubling pattern, that began in Arkansas in the
1980s and has continued in Washington during the Clinton Administration,
in which the Clintons and their associates have sought to
hinder, impede and control investigations into Madison Guaranty
S&L and the Whitewater real estate investment. Parts of this larger
pattern include (i) Mrs. Clinton’s decision in 1988—when federal
investigators were examining possible misconduct leading to Madison
Guaranty’s failure just two years before—to order the destruction
of records relating to her representation of this S&L; (ii) Mr.
Foster’s and Mr. Hubbell’s improper and unauthorized 1992 removal
of Rose Law Firm records and files relating to Mrs. Clinton’s
representation of this corrupt S&L; and (iii) and the improper communication
to White House officials during the fall of 1993 of confidential
information relating to ongoing criminal investigations of
Madison Guaranty and of Capital Management Services, Inc., a
small business investment company also central to the Whitewater
By the time of Vincent Foster’s death in July 1993, the Clintons had
established a pattern of concealing their involvement with
Whitewater and the McDougals’ Madison Guaranty S&L
The actions of senior White House officials and other close Clinton
associates in the days and weeks following Mr. Foster’s death
cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Their actions were but part of a
pattern that began in 1988 of concealing, controlling and even destroying
damaging information concerning the Whitewater real estate
investment and the Clintons’ ties to James and Susan
McDougal and the Madison S&L. Indeed, at the time of Mr. Foster’s
death, the Clintons and their associates were aware that the
Clintons’ involvement with Whitewater land deal, the McDougals,
and the Madison S&L might subject them to civil liability and even
criminal investigation.
In 1988, Mrs. Clinton ordered the destruction of records relating
to her representation of Mr. McDougal’s Madison S&L.11 This was
not a routine destruction of records. At the time, federal regulators
were investigating the operation and solvency of Madison in anticipation
of taking it over. These Rose Law Firm records, which after
Madison’s failure would have belonged to the Resolution Trust Corporation
(‘‘RTC’’),12 were directly relevant to that investigation.
By ordering their destruction, Mrs. Clinton eliminated pertinent
records and also exposed her firm to potential liability with respect
to her representation. Indeed, if such representation was proper, as
Mrs. Clinton has claimed, her document destruction deprived the
law firm of the records necessary to defend itself in a suit by federal
investigators. Moreover, in 1988, Seth Ward, a former associate
of Mr. McDougal and Webster Hubbell’s father-in-law, was actually
suing Madison Guaranty over a land deal that federal regulators
have described as a fraud.13 Mrs. Clinton had performed
work on the project, including having numerous telephones calls
and meetings with Mr. Ward, and the law firm record of her work
and the transactions surrounding this land deal certainly would
have been highly relevant to the conduct of that suit.
Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton’s destruction of documents could constitute
a breach of legal ethics and, possibly, a violation of law if
done with the knowledge that the documents are material to investigations
or ongoing litigation.14 Professor Stephen Gillers of New
York University, a noted ethics expert, has recently stated: ‘‘I don’t
know how it could be that these files were destroyed. . . . It makes
it stranger that they were destroyed, not only so soon after they
were created but also at a time when this lawsuit was about to go
to trial. . . . It certainly could lead to suspicion that she has something
to hide because one possible inference from the destruction
is that there was something in those files that she did not want
to have made public.’’ 15
The pattern further continued during the 1992 presidential campaign,
after questions arose about the Clintons’ investment with
the McDougals in Whitewater and Mrs. Clinton’s representation of
Madison Guaranty before a state agency. In an effort to respond to
inquiries from the press and charges from other candidates, Mrs.
Clinton’s then-law partner, Vincent Foster, collected all the information
he could on the Madison representation. At the conclusion
of the campaign, the Madison files, which were by now the property
of the RTC as conservator of Madison, as well as the files of
other Rose clients for whom Mrs. Clinton had performed legal services,
were secretly removed from the firm by another then-Rose
Law Firm partner, Webster Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell removed these
files, at times taking the firm’s only copies,16 without obtaining the
consent of the firm or client.17 Given that Mr. Hubbell was about
to assume a position of great public trust as Associate Attorney
General, his unauthorized decision to remove these files is especially

“After federal investigators began to look into matters relating to
Madison Guaranty and Whitewater, a number of subpoenas were
issued for these Rose Law Firm billing records. By then, however,
the records were nowhere to be found. Despite extensive searches
conducted by the law firm, neither the originals nor copies were
discovered.20 They were not in the firm computers, its client files,
or the firm’s storage facility.21
Apparently, at some point, someone removed these billing
records from the Rose Law Firm. In August 1995, Carolyn Huber,
an assistant to Mrs. Clinton, discovered them in the book room of
the White House Residence, next to Mrs. Clinton’s office.”

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.”

“It is with this knowledge that the Clintons and their advisers
came to Washington, taking with them the important documents
relating to Whitewater and Madison. The documents (including
documents improperly taken from the law firm) were entrusted
only to close associates of the Clintons, chiefly Messrs. Foster and

“White House officials engaged in highly improper conduct in handling
documents in Vincent Foster’s office following his death
The evidence before the Special Committee established that
White House officials engaged in a pattern of deliberate obstruction,
and interference with, efforts by law enforcement authorities
to conduct their several investigations into Mr. Foster’s death.”

“The pattern of obstruction continued with the White House dealings
with the Justice Department.”

“Beyond this, the Special Committee concludes that the ‘‘review’’
of documents in Mr. Foster’s office on July 22 was a sham. Law enforcement
authorities did not review any documents; Mr. Nussbaum
relied on their presence simply to ‘‘dress up’’ the review.”

“Viewed in the aggregate, then, these numerous instances of
White House interference with several ongoing law enforcement investigations
amounted to far more than just aggressive lawyering
or political naivete. Rather, the Special Committee concludes that
the actions of these senior White House officials constitute a highly
improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.
Mrs. Clinton was closely involved in the handling of documents in
Mr. Foster’s office following his death and directed that investigators
be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to his office.”

“The evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that, early in
the morning of July 22, Mrs. Clinton, Susan Thomases and Margaret
Williams discussed the procedures for conducting the review
of documents in Mr. Foster’s office.”

“The Special Committee concludes that its effort to find the truth
about the events of July 20–27, 1993 was impeded by what appeared
to be a disturbing pattern of incomplete and inaccurate testimony
by senior White House officials and close Clinton associates.
Time and again, the testimony of career law enforcement officials
and others without a motive to lie, as well as documentary evidence,
told one consistent story, while senior White House officials
and close Clinton associates offered a contradictory version of the

“As set forth below in the Findings of this Report, the Committee
concludes that four persons—Margaret Williams, Susan Thomases,
Bernard Nussbaum and Webster Hubbell—provided incomplete
and inaccurate testimony to the Committee in an apparent effort
to conceal the intimate involvement of Mrs. Clinton in the events
following Mr. Foster’s death.
The Office of the White House Counsel was misused to impede ongoing
investigations and to serve the purely personal legal interests
of the President, Mrs. Clinton and their associates
Every citizen is entitled to mount a defense to civil and criminal
charges. The President is no different. He is not entitled, however,
to use the power of his office to gain a defense of his private legal
affairs not available to other Americans. The White House Counsel’s
Office is supposed to serve the President in his official executive
capacity. These lawyer are paid by the taxpayers to serve the
public interest.
In the matter of Mr. Foster’s death, the Office of the White
House counsel served, in effect, as the Clintons’ personal defense
law firm. This service extended beyond Mr. Foster’s employment as
the Clinton’s personal attorney to the use of the White House
Counsel’s Office in the days following his death to interfere with
and hinder several ongoing federal investigations into Mr. Foster’s
death and the handling of documents in Mr. Foster’s office at the
time of his death. Instead of cooperating with law enforcement officials,
the Office of the White House Counsel impeded the investigations
of the Park Police and the Department of Justice. The White
House lawyers ignored and, in some cases, intentionally violated
established procedures that would have ensured the proper handling
of documents in Mr. Foster’s office.”

“The actions of the White House are especially serious because
the Special Committee has discovered that the files shielded from
the Department of Justice contained evidence relevant to two investigations
that touched on the Clintons’ personal interests: the
criminal referral into Madison S&L, and the anticipated investigation,
by Congress and others, into the Travel Office firings. As demonstrated
in this Report, the White House, including Mrs. Clinton,
were on notice that these investigations were either ongoing or imminent.
As it happens, both of these investigations were of sufficient
weight to be now under the jurisdiction of an Independent
Against this background, the actions of the White House during
the week after Mr. Foster’s death must be judged. These White
House actions were highly improper; they were deliberate; and they
adversely affected ongoing investigations by career law enforcement
officials. The American people will never be sure of the contents
of Vincent Foster’s office at the time of his death. Their uncertainty
and doubts, however, clearly are the direct result of the
wrongful action by the White House.”

I urge you to read more and share this information.

From the NY Times January 8, 1996.

“Essay;Blizzard of Lies”

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

“3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster’s White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years — in Hillary’s closet, in Web Hubbell’s basement before his felony conviction, in the President’s secretary’s personal files — before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell’s father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

Read more:



NC A&T University debuts new website, 400k grant, 10 percent tuition hike, More spending like drunken sailors in UNC university system

NC A&T University debuts new website, 400k grant, 10 percent tuition hike, More spending like drunken sailors in UNC university system

“Guilford (Large NC County) appears on it’s way to a third consecutive year with annual jobless rates in double digits. Economists say that likely hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.”…Greensboro News Record December 2, 2011

“…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”…Margaret Thatcher

Recently I wrote about UNCG, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and other UNC state supported schools spending like drunken sailors and raising tuition. Here is another example. NC A&T is a UNC school also located in Greensboro, NC. Here is another example of questionable spending in the worst economy here since the Great Depression.
From the Greensboro News & Record print edition February 27, 2012.

“A&T debuts new website”

“A $ 400,000 grant funds redesign for vibrant, informative recruiting tool.”

” The new site ( launches today, and Martin said it clearly tells the Aggie story and will help the community to better connect and engage with the university.”

“The website was redesigned using $ 400,000 in grant money that helped pay for consultants that assisted university staff on the project.”

From the Greensboro News & Record 19, 2011.

“A&T trustees approve tuition hike”
“N.C. A&T students will see their tuition bills rise over the next five years under a plan the university’s board of trustees approved Friday afternoon.

A UNCG tuition and fee committee this week also recommended increases on that campus.

The tuition increases at A&T represent a 10 percent hike for undergraduates and 12 percent for graduate students.”

“Next year won’t be the last time A&T students feel the pain of a higher tuition bill. Under a plan to phase in increases, undergraduates will pay an additional $200 a year for another four years. Graduate students will pay an extra $300 a year during the same time period.

The UNC system has a 6.5 percent cap in place on tuition increases, but system leaders are allowing campuses this year to propose increases above that cap to help make up for money lost through budget cuts.”

““Literally, schools are in a position where we’ve got to figure out something else to do,” Akua Matherson, A&T’s assistant vice chancellor for budget and planning, told the trustees’ business affairs committee Friday morning in explaining the temporary lift on the tuition cap.

Matherson said the increases will help A&T maintain the level of funding needed to compete with its peer institutions.

The tuition money will generate nearly $5 million for the university. It will be invested in need-based financial aid, academic and student support, institutional support such as safety initiatives, and graduate assistantships.

Trustees unanimously approved the increases, but not without concern.

Once the increases kick in, trustee Pamela McCorkle Buncum said she would like to hear how they are affecting students.

She said she wants administrators to compile information such as how many are having to drop out to work and earn money for tuition.”


Penny Pritzker Obama Economic advisor fundraiser, Media Matters aka Times of 1984, Destroy banks and economy, Blame others

Penny Pritzker Obama Economic advisor fundraiser, Media Matters aka Times of 1984, Destroy banks and economy, Blame others

“During its 15 years in New York City, ACORN has helped squatters claim derelict city-owned property, forced bankers to invest in low-income communities, and organized a war against the city’s workfare program.

It’s also developed a reputation for no-holds-barred tactics—getting results through adversarial campaigns against bankers, politicians and bureaucrats using confrontation and concession rather than consensus.”…ACORN document, February 1999

“We intend to close loopholes that allowed big financial firms to trade risky financial products like credit defaults swaps and other derivatives without
oversight; to identify system-wide risks that could cause a meltdown; to strengthen capital and liquidity requirements to make the system more stable; and to ensure that the failure of any large firm does not take the entire economy down with it. Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank
that is “too big to fail.”…Barack Obama

“Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says he’ll crack down on fraudulent sub-prime lenders. If he really means it he can start by firing his campaign finance chair, Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama’s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank’s sordid story and its abominable role in fueling the sub-prime crisis are well known and documented. It engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It did it with the sleepy-eyed see-no-evil oversight of federal. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority.

Obama’s home state, Illinois, ranked near the top of thee states in the percentage of sub-prime mortgages. Nearly 15 percent of home loans were sub-prime according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. But that only tells part of the tale. According to the Woodstock Institute, a Chicago non-profit that studies housing issues, the sub-prime fall-out was far higher in the predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods of South and Southwest Chicago.

The predictable happened when many of those lost their homes. When the bank collapsed Pritzker and bank officials skipped away with their profits and reputations intact. Aside from the financial and personal misery sub prime lenders caused the thousands of distressed homeowners, sub-prime lending has been a major cause of the housing crisis in many areas, and has dealt a sledgehammer blow to the economy. Obama has said nothing about Pritzker, Superior Bank, or their dubious practices.”…Huffington Post, February 29, 2008

“As a businesswoman and education advocate, I have spent much of my life working to improve America’s economic competitiveness — and put the American Dream within reach for more people.”…Penny Pritzker

Birds of a feather flock together. The old saying seems to be true. Take Barack Obama and Penny Pritzker. They both have done their part to destroy banks and blame others for the devastation. They both use Media Matters which looks a lot like the Times of George Orwell’s “1984” to divert attention away from them.

Before I present more details on Penny Pritzker and her collaboration with Obama, here is an interesting article by David Moburg from November 8, 2002.

“Breaking the Bank”

“After federal regulators closed the $2.3 billion Superior Bank in July 2001, investigations revealed that the suburban Chicago thrift was tainted with the hallmarks of a mini-Enron scandal. New legal developments are adding additional twists, including racketeering charges. And yet the bank’s owners, members if one of America’s wealthiest families, ultimately could end up profiting from the bank’s collapse, while many of Superior’s borrowers and depositors suffer financial losses.

The Superior story has a familiar ring. Using a variety of shell companies and complex financial gimmicks, Superior’s managers and owners exaggerated the profits and financial soundness of the bank. While the company actually lost money throughout most of the ’90s, publicly it appeared to be growing remarkably fast and making unusually large profits. Under that cover, the floundering enterprise paid its owners huge dividends and provided them favorable loans and other financial deals deemed illegal by federal investigators.

Superior’s outside auditor, which doubled as a financial consultant, engaged in dubious accounting practices that kept feckless regulators at bay. Many individuals—disproportionately low-income and minority borrowers with spotty credit records—had apparently been exploited through predatory-lending techniques, including exorbitant fees, inadequate disclosure and high interest rates. In the end, more than 1,000 uninsured depositors lost millions of dollars in savings in one of the biggest bank failures of the past decade.

Yet unlike Enron, the people behind Superior’s collapse were not nouveau-riche corporate hustlers, but members of Chicago’s Pritzker family. The Pritzkers, whose two current patriarchs—Robert and his nephew Thomas—tie for 22nd place on Forbes’ list of the richest Americans, own an empire valued at more than $15 billion, including the Hyatt hotel chain, casinos, manufacturers and real estate, and they are major contributors to both political parties. They were equal partners in the private ownership of Superior with New York real estate developer Alvin Dworman, a longtime associate of Thomas’ father, Jay Pritzker, who died in 1999.

And Superior’s accounting and consulting was not provided by the disgraced Arthur Andersen, but by Ernst & Young. When regulators shuttered the bank, the publicity-shy Pritzkers, who take pride in their philanthropy (such as the prestigious international architecture award in the family name) quickly negotiated what appeared to be a generous settlement to stay out of the newspapers and the courtrooms.

But now both the Pritzkers and Ernst & Young may face the legal and public relations uproar they were trying to avoid. On November 1, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sued Ernst & Young for more than $2 billion. The FDIC alleges that the firm concealed its improper accounting practices at Superior to facilitate the sale of its consulting unit for $11 billion, leading to Superior’s insolvency and ultimately costing the FDIC $750 million. Ernst & Young denies responsibility, blaming the bank’s managers and board, failed regulation and changing economic conditions. Investigators from the FDIC, Treasury Department and the General Accounting Office (GAO) had cited all those causes for Superior’s failure, but also had criticized Ernst & Young’s flawed work and conflicts of interest.

Meanwhile, in a case that has received no public notice, uninsured depositors are bringing a charge of financial racketeering against one-time board chairwoman Penny Pritzker, her cousin Thomas Pritzker, Dworman, other bank principals and Ernst & Young. In this federal class-action suit filed under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, plaintiffs’ attorney Clint Krislov claims that those who controlled Superior induced depositors to put money in the bank, “corruptly” funneling money out of the bank to “fraudulently” profit the owners. Pritzker attorney Stephen Novack says that the defendants will ask to dismiss the case as having no merit. Such a RICO suit has rarely, if ever, been used to recover money lost in a bank failure, partly because the owners in such cases, in the words of bank consultant Bert Ely, “usually don’t have a pot to piss in.” But the Pritzkers have a gold-plated pot.

This may not be the last of legal battles stemming from the Superior failure. Published reports indicate that a federal grand jury has been investigating potential criminal wrongdoing and that the Internal Revenue Service could press claims against the owners for tax evasion.


The problems at Superior Bank date back to at least 1988, when the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, in an effort to conceal the depths of the developing savings-and-loan crisis, hastily made generous arrangements for the takeover of several failed thrifts. The Pritzkers and Dworman bought the failed Lyons Federal for the relatively modest price of $42.5 million, with each using a shell corporation to control half of Coast-to-Coast Financial Corporation (CCFC), a holding company created to own Superior.

Superior opened for business with substantial federal assistance and guarantees, but the Pritzkers also reportedly received $645 million in tax credits as an inducement to buy Lyons. This was not the first Pritzker-Dworman joint venture into banking. In 1985, the partners had acquired New York-based River Bank America. But in 1991, federal and state regulators closed River Bank, which was engaged in large-scale real estate speculation, when they discovered that the bank had inadequate capital and was badly managed. Nelson Stephenson, the chief financial officer of River Bank, later became chairman of Superior.

In 1992, the Pritzkers and Dworman transferred ownership of Alliance Funding Company, a nationwide mortgage banking company the partners had founded in 1985, to Superior Bank, which began specializing in selling securities backed by subprime mortgages. Prospective homeowners with less-than-stellar credit ratings often must turn to such subprime lenders, which typically charge higher interest rates to compensate for the higher risk of default.

But a great many subprime lenders also unfairly exploit borrowers, seeking them out through aggressive television, direct mail and telemarketing techniques, then charging excessively high interest rates and exorbitant fees. Since many borrowers are in difficult situations and financially unsophisticated, they often are duped into agreeing to harsh conditions, such as stiff penalties for pre-paying their mortgages if their credit improves or interest rates drop, or improper costs, such as having the entire dividend for a 30-year-mortgage insurance policy included up-front in their mortgage.

Superior Bank accumulated mortgages that originated from its own branches or Alliance offices, as well as those bought from other brokers. They would then issue securities with high credit ratings but lower interest rates than what they charged borrowers. As collateral, these securities were backed by the stream of income from the mortgages. Superior Bank would retain “residual interests”—part of the collateral mortgages plus some of the excess mortgage interest—but they also retained responsibility for all of the potential losses, or what’s known in the business as “toxic waste.”

Because of the greater risks of subprime lending, it was difficult to project the future value of Superior’s residual interests. But aided by Fintek, another subsidiary of CCFC, and abetted by Ernst & Young, Superior made extremely rosy projections and—like Enron—booked those projected profits as immediate, or “imputed,” earnings. The extremely optimistic value of some residual interests was also counted as part of Superior’s capital, which banks must maintain at regulated levels—depending on their condition and type of business—to make sure that depositors can be repaid.


Examiners from the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) expressed concern about aggressive subprime policy, the value of residuals, the level of capital and other bank practices early in the ’90s. But Superior’s managers and board filed erroneous reports and repeatedly failed to take any of the action that regulators recommended. Nevertheless, according to investigators, the OTS did not take any corrective action. They were persuaded that management was experienced (even though two top managers had been involved in large losses or failures at other thrifts); that Ernst & Young had given its approval in annual audits without any reservations (even though the firm had a long history of penalties and censure for its involvement in high-profile thrift failures); and that “because of their financial status, the OTS placed a great deal of reliance on the ability of the owners to inject capital if the institution encountered any financial difficulties,” as the FDIC inspector general’s report stated.

Meanwhile, Superior was growing rapidly: Loan volume rose from $200 million generated in 1993 to $2.2 billion in 1999, with the value of securities issued reaching $9.4 billion. The bank reported a return on assets that was 12 times the industry average. But its reliance on the risky residual interests from its mortgage securitization soared to levels far out of line with the rest of the industry, and by 2000 the bank’s residual interests were valued at more than four times its less fictional capital (such as stockholder equity). Superior expanded its business to subprime auto loans, then had to pull out because it was clearly failing.

All this should have looked like a sea of red flags to regulators, but they issued modest warnings and failed to follow up when management ignored their recommendations. Superior’s management actually revised its accounting methods in 1997 to further exaggerate its projected earnings, and it more than doubled the volume of the lowest quality loans in the following years. It was all a house of cards, but a very lucrative one for the owners. During the ’90s, the bank paid CCFC—and thus the Pritzkers and Dworman—more than $200 million in dividends.


There was a small problem, however. From 1995 on, investigators concluded, Superior was actually losing money, except for the fictional “imputed” earnings. So the dividends effectively were being paid out of the growing deposits, a practice that Ely describes as having “Ponzi-like characteristics.” Furthermore, in 2000 Superior sold loans to CCFC, which the holding company immediately resold for a $20.2 million profit. Such a sale of assets at less than fair market value to insiders is a violation of federal law. There were other loans made to CCFC and its affiliates totalling $36.7 million—all in violation of the Federal Reserve Act—that were never repaid, the inspector general reported.

Superior also supposedly loaned the Dworman family’s shell company $70 million in 1996, but even though Dworman promised to pay it all back by the end of 1999, the inspector general found no evidence of any payments being made. (Dworman reportedly claimed that the money was a dividend payment concealed as a loan, which would raise questions about tax evasion.) All these transactions enriched the Pritzkers and Dworman at the expense of the bank—and ultimately the FDIC insurance fund and uninsured depositors.

In the spring of 1999, both the OTS and FDIC downgraded Superior’s rating. Over the course of nearly two years, Superior and Ernst & Young resisted the analysis and recommendations of the regulatory agencies, but by January 2001 Ernst & Young finally agreed that the accounting of the residual assets had been wrong. The bank was deeply troubled even in good times, but the vulnerabilities would only increase. As interest rates declined, borrowers would try to pay off high-interest loans and refinance; as unemployment rose, increasing numbers of subprime borrowers would default.

After downgrading the bank further, regulators concluded that it was “significantly undercapitalized” and needed an infusion of $270 million, which the Pritzkers—with some participation by Dworman—agreed in March to provide. Then in July regulators reported that, as a result of overly optimistic assumptions, the bank would need to write off an additional $150 million of of its residual interests. The Pritzkers pulled out of the agreed capital plan, and the feds closed the bank.


Wanting to avoid a lawsuit, the secretive Pritzkers quickly agreed to what the FDIC hailed in December as the biggest settlement they had ever negotiated. The Pritzkers would pay $100 million immediately, then $360 million over 15 years. But there were lots of little provisions in the agreement that benefit the Pritzkers. First, as former bank consultant and longtime thrift watchdog Tim Anderson notes, the $100 million doesn’t even quite pay back all of the unpaid loans made to the owners. The Pritzkers also pay no interest on the $360 million, and since it is paid over many years, the real cost to the Pritzkers may be only around $250 million. As of September 2002, according to FDIC figures, the insurance fund was still out $440 million after this settlement.

But it gets even sweeter for the Pritzkers. The FDIC also agreed to pay the Pritzkers 25 percent of any claim won in a lawsuit against Ernst & Young. Since the FDIC is now suing for $548 million, the Pritzker share could be $137 million. On top of that, the agreement stated that the Pritzkers get half of any civil penalties from such a lawsuit (after certain agency expenses). The FDIC is asking for triple damages, or $1.64 billion; the Pritzker share could be over $800 million.

Even taking into account the “record” settlement they made with the FDIC, the Pritzkers could make more than $700 million in additional profit for running a financial institution into the ground. They had already profited handsomely, sharing in the more than $200 million in dividends to the owners in the ’90s. They accomplished all this with an investment of about $21 million for each partner—though the Pritzkers had also already benefited from $645 million in tax credits.

Meanwhile, roughly 1,000 depositors who had deposits above $100,000 in a Superior account—money above the FDIC-insured limit—lost about $65 million. Most of them were middle-class individuals, attracted by Superior’s high interest rates. In the three months just before the bank was closed, there was a surge of $9.6 million in uninsured deposits. Since about 54 percent of the uninsured money has since been repaid as Superior was sold off, the depositors have still collectively lost about $30 million. (That just happens to be the amount that the Pritzkers gave to the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Medicine earlier this year.)


Some of that money could have paid back Fran Sweet for the roughly $138,000 that she has still not recovered from her deposits at Superior. After retiring as a manager at a telecommunications company, Sweet was seeking a secure place to put her entire retirement savings of about $500,000. “I knew the Pritzkers were owners of the bank,” she says, “and they were a reputable name in Chicago. I had no idea that the bank was in trouble.”

She even asked a bank manager if there was anything wrong with the bank. “She said, ‘No, nothing is wrong, We’re owned by the Pritzkers,’ ” Sweet recalls. “I want it all back. I worked 23 years for a company and got this money from them as a buyout, and the Pritzker family and Dworman stole it from me.”

People at the other end of the deal—who borrowed from Superior—are also still hurting as a result of the scam. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which monitors bank lending, last year accused Superior of participating in a variety of predatory practices, including overly aggressive telemarketing, targeting low-income minority borrowers, and disproportionately incorporating problematic “balloon payments” in the loans. One borrower in Philadelphia, represented by attorney Brian Mildenberg, ended up in bankruptcy partly because Superior didn’t properly credit him for payments he had made. In another case, Cleveland construction worker Dan Sutton claims that a broker for Superior falsified papers to inflate his mortgage and charged exorbitant fees.

The Pritzkers are likely to make out like bandits, which is exactly what customers like Sweet and Sutton think they are. All of the government studies of Superior’s failure agree that there’s plenty of blame to spread around. As the FDIC inspector general’s report concluded, the bank managers pursued an ultra-risky strategy based on unrealistic assumptions and unjustifiably pumped dividends and illegal, unpaid loans out of the bank and into the owners’ coffers.

Ernst & Young provided inaccurate audits, resisted regulators, and did not test or properly disclose crucial financial assumptions. The OTS didn’t investigate or follow up on problems adequately, ignored warning signs for years, and unduly relied on the expertise of managers, the auditor’s report, and the promise of the wealthy owners to put their money behind the bank’s strategy, which they ultimately refused to do. While the FDIC lawsuit against Ernst & Young correctly highlights the accounting firm’s sorry record of accounting malpractice, it ignores the dubious history of the Pritzkers and Dworman in cases ranging from tax evasion to bank mismanagement, instead praising the Pritzkers for their charity.

What looked like a good deal for the FDIC in resolving Superior’s failure is now looking like yet another opportunity for the wealthy Pritzkers to further profit from their misdeeds. Certainly, the record suggests that Ernst & Young bears responsibility, but so do the Pritzkers and Dworman. The question is not just who will extract money from whose pocket in the aftermath of the bank failure, but also whether the rich are simply above the law. The RICO lawsuit against bank managers, owners and auditors raises the issue of criminal conspiracy and at least attempts to recover damages for the uninsured depositors. But beyond that, argues thrift watchdog Anderson, “I think there ought to be a criminal investigation.””

2011 most ignored stories, Real unemployment rate, Fast and Furious, Occupy Wall Street backers, Rise of Islamic radicals, Obama birth certificate fraud, Chicago corruption ties

2011 most ignored stories, Real unemployment rate, Fast and Furious, Occupy Wall Street backers, Rise of Islamic radicals, Obama birth certificate fraud, Chicago corruption ties

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”...George Orwell, “1984″

From WND, World Net Daily, December 31, 2011.

“What were the most ignored stories of 2011?”

“While the establishment news media brought plenty of bad economic news in 2011, the real story hasn’t been adequately told.

The true rate of unemployment and inflation and the real state of the U.S. economy, which is far worse than reported, tops WND’s annual list of the 10 most “spiked” or underreported stories of the last year.

At the end of each year, many news organizations typically present their retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories of the previous 12 months.

WND’s editors, however, long have considered it more newsworthy to publicize the most underreported or unreported news events of the year – to shine a spotlight on those issues that the establishment media successfully “spiked.”

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has sponsored “Operation Spike” every year since 1988, and since founding WND in May 1997, has continued the annual tradition.”

“Produced with the help of WND readers, here are the WND editors’ picks for the 10 most underreported or unreported stories of 2011:”

“1. The true rate of unemployment and inflation and the real state of the U.S. economy, which is far worse than reported.”

“2. The Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” operation, which facilitated the delivery of American firearms into Mexico to violent drug cartels, later used in the murder of hundreds, including a U.S. Border Patrol agent.”

“3. The organizations and money behind the supposedly “leaderless” Occupy Wall Street movement.”

“4. The role of leftwing groups and the Obama administration in the fall of Arab regimes and the rise of Islamic radicals.”

“5. Compelling evidence from multiple experts that the birth certificate released by Barack Obama on April 27, 2011, is a fraud.”

“6. The true mission of Islamic groups such as CAIR and other U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood-front organizations and their infiltration of the U.S.”

“7. The real impact on the U.S. economy of Obama’s $787 billion stimulus.”

“8. The harmful impact of unions on the American economy.”

“9. The looming potential for an EMP attack on the U.S. and its devastating impact.”

“10. The federal government’s raid of the Gibson Guitar factory.”

Read more:

Let’s not forget Obama’s ties to Chicago and Illinois corruption. They continued to haunt him throughout 2011.

From Citizen Wells December 28, 2011.

“2011: 12 months of Obama Chicago corruption ties.”

From Judicial Watch December 26, 2011.

“Judicial Watch Announces Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2011″

“Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2011 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Former Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Attorney General Eric Holder
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
President Barack Obama
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)”

“President Barack Obama: President Obama makes Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Wanted” list for a fifth consecutive year. (The former Illinois Senator was also a “Dishonorable Mention” in 2006.) And when it comes to Obama corruption, it may not get any bigger than Solyndra. Solyndra was once known as the poster child for the Obama administration’s massive “green energy” initiative, but it has become the poster child for the corruption that ensues when the government meddles in the private sector. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in September 2011, leaving 1,100 workers without jobs and the American taxpayers on the hook for $535 million thanks to an Obama administration stimulus loan guarantee.

Despite the Obama administration’s reticence to release details regarding this scandal, much is known about this shady deal. White House officials warned the president that the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program was “dangerously short on due diligence,” nonetheless the Obama administration rushed the Solyndra loan through the approval process so it could make a splash at a press event. The company’s main financial backer was a major Obama campaign donor named George Kaiser. While the White House said Kaiser never discussed the loan with White House officials, the evidence suggests this is a lie. And, further demonstrating the political nature of the Obama administration’s activities, the Energy Department pressured Solyndra to delay an announcement on layoffs until after the 2010 elections. Despite the public outrage at this scandalous waste of precious tax dollars, President Obama continues to defend the indefensible and has refused to sack anyone over the Solyndra mess.

President Obama continues to countenance actions by his appointees that undermine the rule of law and constitutional government:

Despite a ban on funding that Obama signed into law, his administration continues to fund the corrupt and allegedly defunct “community” organization ACORN. In July 2011 Judicial Watch uncovered a $79,819 grant to AHCOA (Affordable Housing Centers of America), the renamed ACORN Housing which has a long history of corrupt activity. In absolute violation of the funding ban, Judicial Watch has since confirmed that the Obama administration has funneled $730,000 to the ACORN network, a group that has a long personal history with President Obama.In 2011, JW released a special report entitled “The Rebranding of ACORN,” which details how the ACORN network is alive and well and well-placed to undermine the integrity of the 2012 elections – evidently with the assistance of the Obama administration.

Barack Obama apparently believes it is his “prerogative” to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law when it comes to appointing czars. According to Politico: “President Barack Obama is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending package that would ban several top White House advisory posts. Obama said this ban on “czars” would undermine “the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In other words, Barack Obama believes he must ignore the U.S. Constitution to protect the U.S. Constitution. Many Obama administration czars have not been subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate as required by the U.S. Constitution. In 2011, JW released a first-of-its-kind comprehensive report on the Obama czar scandal, entitled “President Obama’s Czars.”

In an historic victory for Judicial Watch and an embarrassing defeat for the Obama White House, a federal court ruled on August 17, 2011 that Secret Service White House visitor logs are agency records that are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued the decision in Judicial Watch v. Secret Service. The Obama administration now will have to release all records of all visitors to the White House – or explain why White House visits should be kept secret under the law. The Obama White House continues to fight full disclosure and has stalled the release of records by appealing the lower court decision.(Judicial Watch gave Obama a “failing grade” on transparency in testimony before Congress in 2011. (Read the testimony in full as well as additional congressional testimony during a hearing entitled “White House Transparency, Visitor Logs and Lobbyists.”))

In 2011, the Obama National Labor Relations Board sought to prevent the Seattle-based Boeing Company from opening a $750 million non-union assembly line in North Charleston, South Carolina, to manufacture its Dreamliner plane. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) showing this lawsuit was politically motivated. Judicial Watch uncovered documents showing NLRB staff cheerleading for Big Labor, mouthing Marxist, anti-American slurs and showing contempt for Congress related to the agency’s lawsuit against Boeing, including email correspondence attacking members of Congress. And it starts at the top. Obama bypassed Congress and recess-appointed Craig Becker, who is connected to the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and ACORN, to the NRLB.

Obama’s corrupt Chicago dealings continued to haunt him in 2011.Obama’s real estate partner, campaign fundraiser and Obama pork recipient Antoin “Tony” Rezko was finally sentenced to jail this year as was former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is now set to serve 14 years for attempting to sell Obama’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. The FBI continues to withhold from Judicial Watch documents of its historic interview of then-Senator Obama about the Illinois corruption scandal. The FBI interview was conducted in December, 2008, about one month before Obama was sworn into the presidency.”

Donald Young murder anniversary, Obama TUCC church Choir director, Larry Sinclair, Obama Young relationship posted on Chicago BET message board

Donald Young murder anniversary, Obama TUCC church Choir director, Larry Sinclair, Obama Young relationship posted on Chicago BET message board

“Why was Donald Young, the gay choir director at TUCC, Obama’s church, murdered in December 2007 just as the presidential campaign was heating up?…Citizen Wells

“Was Barack Obama involved in a relationship with Donald Young?”…Citizen Wells

From Larry Sinclair December 23, 2011.

“It was four years today that Obama friend/lover was murdered”

“Exactly four years today Obama friend and lover Donald Young was found murdered in his Chicago home. On December 27, 2007 an individual who knew about the Obama/Young relationship posted on a Chicago BET message board

“Joshua said on December 27th, 2007 well i really hope that the fact that he was involved with obama cannot be linked to this murder!”

It should also be noted that the comment link above, 3 years and 362 days later takes you to a Error 404- Not Found page on BET. Efforts to reach BET (Black Entertainment Television) by phone to obtain a comment as to why the item has been removed from BET Message Board have been unsuccessful. According to a recording the BET offices are closed.

Today three years and 362 days later Chicago Police nor anyone else has ever looked into Obama’s relationship with Donald Young as it might relate to Young’s murder.

Representatives of the Cook County States Attorney say “no arrest or charging of any defendant in the case has been made yet.” One representative from the States Attorney Office asked us for the name of the “person of interest” in the case, yet we were never told that name when informed in July the Chicago Police Department had a “POI” but had not made any arrest.

Chicago PD Has/Had Person of Interest in Young Murder”

Read more:


Chris Wallace Darrell Issa interview, Operation Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Attorney General Eric Holder congressional investigation

Chris Wallace Darrell Issa interview, Operation Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Attorney General Eric Holder congressional investigation

From Fox News October 9, 2011.

“Darrell Issa Talks Fast and Furious Fallout”

“The following is a rush transcript of the October 9, 2011, edition of “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace.” This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.”

“CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I’m Chris Wallace.

Congressional Republicans are demanding answers from Attorney General Eric Holder about a federal gun running sting gone wrong.
With “Operation Fast and Furious” in the crosshairs of investigators, what’s the fall for the Obama administration? We’ll ask the head of the House Government Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa — only on “Fox News Sunday.”

And then Chris Christie and Sarah Palin take a pass on the presidential run. Is the time right for another candidate to make a move? We’ll speak with a contender looking to fill the void, former Senator Rick Santorum.

Plus, the “Occupy Wall Street” protests gain momentum, spreading across the country. We’ll ask our Sunday panel if the new movement is the left’s answer to the Tea Party.

And our power player of the week — a pro-football veteran tackles an issue of life and death.

All right now on “Fox News Sunday”.

And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

The Obama administration is now being rocked by two scandals — “Operation Fast and Furious” and the awarding of a half billion dollar loan guarantee to Solyndra, a solar panel company that went bankrupt.

Our first guest is at the center of both investigation, Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Congressman, welcome back to “Fox News Sunday.”

REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.: Well, thanks for having me on and covering two of the issues that are causing Americans to lose confidence in their government.

WALLACE: OK. Let’s start with “Fast and Furious” in which ATF agents allowed more than 2,000 weapons to be sold illegally to cross the border. They were going to try to track them to catch drug traffickers. They lost track of a number of them. Hundreds ended up with the Mexican drug cartel and two of them ended up at the murder scene of a U.S. border patrol agent.

I want to take you back to May when you had this now famous exchange with Attorney General Eric Holder. Here it is.


ISSA: When did you first know about the program officially, I believe, called “Fast and Furious”? To the best of your knowledge, what date?

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am not sure about the exact date. But I probably heard about “Fast and Furious” for the first time over the last few weeks.
WALLACE: Congressman, I understand that you are going to issue a new set of subpoenas to the attorney general this week. About what?

ISSA: About “Fast and Furious” and basically, at this point, about why are they denying knowing about something that they were briefed on? Exactly when the American people want to know how did it happen? Understand, we didn’t start off going after the attorney general or Lanny Breuer or anyone else in justice. We started off knowing that Brian Terry was dead, that a lot of —

WALLACE: The U.S. border patrol agent.

ISSA: The U.S. border patrol agent. And that a lot of weapons have been let to walk.

After that, we started being told things like by the Justice Department designated official that we never let weapons walk.

Now, we have literally e-mails in which they are concerned about so many walking and you said something and I don’t mean to correct you — but to expand. We didn’t just have a few not be tracked. The whole program was about not tracking them until they were found in the scene of crimes. And they didn’t just allow. They facilitated just one guy buy, one straw buy, over 700 weapons.

WALLACE: So, specifically, what are your subpoenas about?

ISSA: We want to know what and when they knew it. But more importantly, we have to understand — at what level of the authorization really come? It wasn’t an ATF operation. They were part of that. It was a joint operation in which DEA knew more than ATF.

WALLACE: Drug Enforcement Administration. ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

ISSA: And, of course, these are all parts of the Department of Justice. And as we are beginning to see, and we’re not talking about Eric Holder at this moment, but the people in the top of justice were well-briefed, knew about it, and seemed to be the command and control and funding for this program. And any law enforcement person who’s ever been asked under oath or not under oath comes back and says this wasn’t the right way to do it.

Well, when did they know it wasn’t the right way to do it and why do they keep doing it?

WALLACE: Are you going to subpoena the attorney general to testify again?

ISSA: The Judiciary Committee in which I also served, that’s where that actual question got asked, is — has invited him to come and clear the record, because, clearly, he knew when he said he didn’t. Now, the question is, what did he know and how is he explaining why he gave that answer?

WALLACE: OK. The attorney general sent you a letter Friday afternoon, along with other top officials in both the House and the Senate.

I want to go through some of this push back. He acknowledges that several memos, and here you can see them heavily redacted —

ISSA: This is the way we usually get this, Chris.

WALLACE: — on these dates were sent to his office as much as 10 months earlier, not the few weeks before he testified in May of 2011. But he says — and I want to put up his comments from his letter, “I do not and cannot read them cover to cover. Here, no issues concerning ‘Fast and Furious’ were brought to my attention because the information presented in the report did not suggest a problem.

He’s saying I didn’t know about this program and I certainly didn’t know that we were letting guns walk.

ISSA: Well, I’ll take him at his word, but let’s go back. He answered before Judiciary Committee, myself, Jason Chaffetz, and others, that he didn’t know about it until two weeks earlier. That’s just disingenuous on its face.

Very clearly, he had to know when Brian Terry was killed and everyone realized these were “Fast and Furious” weapons, he had to know something serious had happened and that’s months before he says he knew. Now, if we assume for a moment he didn’t know, the question is, is he competent? If, in fact, a border patrol agent has been murdered, 2,000 weapons have gone, this program has completely gone off of the rails, why didn’t he know? And that’s probably a more important question for the chief law enforcement. If Lanny Breuer knew, why didn’t Eric Holder?

WALLACE: And Larry Breuer, one of his top —
ISSA: One of this top aides who is very involved much earlier on and works in the same office.

WALLACE: OK, Holder points out that top officials briefed you in April of 2010, just around the time that he was first hearing of all of this. He writes and let’s put it up, “I’m aware that Chairman Issa has said that he was not briefed on the unacceptable details of ‘Fast and Furious.'” In other words, the fact they were letting the guns walked.
Two questions, one: is that true? Were you brief and not told? And second, if it is true, how do you know that he was also not told?

ISSA: The interesting thing is he’s quoting a story that he planted, that justice shopped around to the newspaper. But having said that, I’ll answer it.

We were looking into the drug problems, we asked for a briefing. We got a briefing, including Kenneth Melson. We —


ISSA: Of ATF, one of the people that knew about the program but didn’t all the other things that he ultimately read in a still sealed wiretap. That when he read the wiretap and understood how much they knew that this was deliberately letting bad guns go to the drug cartel, he became sick to his stomach. So yes.

WALLACE: But my question is — all right. So, you are saying you were not told about “Fast and Furious” and the gun walking. So, how do you know that he wasn’t told?

ISSA: Well, first of all, it was concealed from us by the Justice Department. That briefing, they were not allowed to know what Kenneth Melson later knew and made him sick to his stomach. Let’s understand, ATF is running an operation. They’re being told guns aren’t getting to the bad guys. Ultimately, the whistleblower came forward, when he realized, of course, guns are getting to the bad guys.

This investigation is not about an operation that was supposed to trace guns. This is about Justice Department knowing and this is where the American people have a right to know more, knowing that these guns were deliberately intended to end up in the hands of the drug cartels without any kind of traceability except if you find a gun in the scene of the crime. That is the reason that it is felony and stupid — and I use the word “felony” deliberately — program.

This should be criminal to let criminals have thousands of deadly weapons.

WALLACE: I have to point out, because Holder does in his letter, the Bush administration had a similar operation called “Operation Wide Receiver” that also, he says, let guns walk?

ISSA: Well, first of all, Eric Holder came in wanting to indict people from that administration. So, I think his standard of the — well, other administration did it, too, is not so good.

But understand, from what we discover from “Wide Receiver” and those, by the way, we have subpoenas for those and those documents have not been delivered. Very few weapons, very, very well-traced — overhead, observation and so on.

What you would think would happen if you let a weapon start to move, you trace it at every step. This was one where they let the weapons go and never looked until they showed up in the scene of Brian Terry’s murder.

WALLACE: Some of your Republican colleagues have called for a special prosecutor to look into Holder’s involvement. Some have called on Holder to resign.

Do you join either of those?

ISSA: Well, I’ve always taken the tack that the president picks the people he has full confidence, and the president still seems to have full confidence in Eric Holder — something I don’t share. When it comes to a special prosecutor, Eric Holder cannot investigate himself. Congress is well along the way of investigating this operation to find out what went wrong, who knew it and what we have to do in the future to make sure it can’t happen again.

If there’s a special prosecutor to look at the narrow issue of top officials who — and they beat political appointees, that’s a separate issue. Our investigation, along with Senator Grassley has to get to the bottom of this sooner, not later, because the American people and people in Mexico don’t trust their government right now.

WALLACE: Let’s turn to the other scandal, Solyndra. The Obama administration had a document dump late Friday, hundreds of pages of e-mails late in Friday afternoon.

ISSA: I don’t know what is about Fridays.

WALLACE: I mean, it’s — all administrations do it, to be fair.

ISSA: Fair.

WALLACE: Overview, before we get into a couple of specifics. What’s your take away from the document dump?

ISSA: Well, they are trying to bury it into the weekend. But just as the document dump a week earlier gave us the Eric Holder situation, what we are finding it is not just Solyndra. It’s a pattern of these sorts of investments. You know, understand, in the last day that the law was there, $4.75 billion was thrown into loans. And one of the questions we have for Secretary Chu is, tell us why that last day, somehow, you had everything you needed and you didn’t have it over a period of time before?

The American people have a right to know on the rare occasions in which their money is used to invest in private operations, if you will, take bets on capitalism, that is very well vetted, very well thought out and without political interference.

Solyndra is a story of political interference, picking winners and losers. It’s salacious because, quite frankly, there were a lot of people giving to President Obama’s campaign.”

Read more:

Obama audacity of corruption, Alexi Giannoulias Chicago fundraiser, August 5, 2010, IL state treasurer, Chicago Tribune endorsed David Hoffman

Obama audacity of corruption, Alexi Giannoulias Chicago fundraiser

Here is another jaw dropping example of Obama audacity and corruption.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama will attend a fundraiser for Alexi Giannoulias on August 5, 2010. Before presenting that story, here is a memory refresher on Obama Giannoulias ties.

From Citizen Wells January 30, 2010
“We’ll leave it to voters to decide if linking Giannoulias to Rezko is a “smear job,” but the Daily Herald story does exist, and the Giannoulias camp knows it. Hoffman’s ad got the date wrong. Careless again. But it has allowed Giannoulias to present himself again as the victim.

None of this changes our opinion. As we wrote in our endorsement: Hoffman, the former inspector general for the city of Chicago, “is an incorruptible man who tells truth to power…”

Hoffman is the Democrats’ best choice to bring the highest ethical standards to the U.S. Senate.””

“From the Chicago tribune, June 12, 2007.

“Obama endorses Alexi Giannoulias for state treasurer”
“But Obama’s record of local endorsements — one measure of how he has used his nascent political clout — has drawn criticism from those who say it reflects his deference to Chicago’s established political order and runs counter to his public calls for clean government.

In the 2006 Democratic primary, for example, Obama endorsed first-time candidate Alexi Giannoulias for state treasurer despite reports about loans Giannoulias’ family-owned Broadway Bank made to crime figures. Records show Giannoulias and his family had given more than $10,000 to Obama’s campaign, which banked at Broadway.”

“From Source Watch

“Barack Obama and campaign contributor Alexi Giannoulias”
“Alexi Giannoulias—a “man who has long been dogged by charges that the bank his family owns helped finance a Chicago crime figure” and “who became Illinois state treasurer” in 2006 after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “vouched for him”—”pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator’s Oval Office bid,” Charles Hurt reported September 5, 2007, in the New York Post.[1]

The September 5, 2007, Chicago fundraiser was omitted from Obama’s public schedule and the event was closed to the press,” Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported.[2]

“Before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled Michael ‘Jaws’ Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution.”
“Obama and Giannoulias reportedly met on the basketball court “in the late 1990s … at the East Bank Club, a luxurious spot in downtown Chicago,” Jodi Kantor wrote June 1, 2007, in the New York Times.[3] Now, “thanks in part to [Obama’s] backing, [Giannoulias] is now the Illinois state treasurer. Other regular gymmates include the president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, the director of the Illinois Department of Public Health and several investment bankers who were early and energetic fund-raisers,” Kantor wrote.”
“Obama the king maker”

“”Did U.S. Senator Barack Obama clear the field in the Democratic state treasurer’s race?” lawyer and political analyst Russ Stewart wrote January 4, 2006.”
“But none announced, and all deferred to Alexi Giannoulias, a 29-year-old Chicago investment banker who was an early supporter of Obama in his 2004 Senate race, whose father owns Broadway Bank, and whose family helped bankroll the Obama campaign. Giannoulias has said that he will campaign as a ‘progressive,’ and he has promised to put more than $1 million in family funds into the race,” Stewart wrote.”

“In March 2006, Giannoulias said that “his ‘good friend and mentor, Barack Obama,’ inspired him to run.””

Read more:

 From the Chicago Tribune July 18, 2010.

“President Barack Obama will headline a Chicago fundraiser on Aug. 5 for Democrat Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias, his campaign announced today.

The fundraiser announcement, which was confirmed by the White House, comes on the heels of the one-term state treasurer announcing that he is trailing Republican opponent Mark Kirk in fundraising by a significant margin.
“The President’s visit will reinforce the importance of the clear choice Illinois voters face” between Giannoulias and Kirk, a veteran North Shore congressman, Giannoulias campaign manager Mike Rendina said in a statement.
Giannoulias and Kirk are vying for the seat Obama held when he was elected president.”

Read more.

Donald Young’s mother speaks out, Donald Young murder, Norma Jean Young, Afirms Larry Sinclair book, Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine Sex Lies & Murder?

Donald Young’s mother speaks out, Donald Young murder, Norma Jean Young

From Larry Sinclair.

“Norma Jean Young, mother of the MURDERED Donald Young Speaks Out: Mother Affirms What Is Written In Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?

Published July 15, 2010

Norma Jean Young speaks out about the murder of her son, Donald Young, former Choir director of Obama’s Church Trinity United in Chicago.  Mrs. Young  “What was the cause of my son’s death? I’m very suspicious that it may have been related to Obama.” “Donald and Obama were close friends.”

Asked who benefited from a cover-up, Norma says, “it could be anyone, including Obama.”

There is more from Donald’s mother that everyone should read.”

Read more: