Fox news. enter at your own risk.

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
FOX NEWS REPORTS.



Atleast when Bush is a paid speaker he doesn't hide where the money comes from. I want to thank GW for helping veterans make some money with his paid performance. But the Clintons are to ashamed to say where their money comes from for paid speeches .



SENATE
Medical Bill: Mystery donor picked up $150G tab for 2010 Clinton speech
By Malia Zimmerman

Published July 10, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook6 Twitter19 livefyre3 Email Print








NOW PLAYING
Author Peter Schweizer on following the 'Clinton Cash' trail


It was a big coup when a nonprofit medical trade group landed Bill Clinton as a speaker at its 2010 annual conference in Chicago -- so big that some members wondered how the former president was being paid.

Not to worry, members of the Radiological Society of North America were told: An anonymous donor footed his bill.

The $150,000 fee was a mere fraction of the $48 million Clinton took in from 215 speeches between 2009 and 2013, while his wife was secretary of state. Who paid Clinton and why they thought it was a fair bargain may never be known — but government watchdogs say it is a prime example of how elusive accounting can be for the ex-president's eye-popping earnings.

It was clear, however, that the husband of America's top diplomat was not chosen for his medical expertise.

“This issue has to be resolved. There has to be an answer as to who gave the money."

- Matthew Whitaker, Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust

“I think this is interesting that you would ask me to come and speak today to a group of people from all over the world, and everyone of you knows more about the subject than I do,” Clinton said at the beginning of his 45-minute address to an audience of 4,250.


Dr. Sam Friedman, a radiologist from Columbia, SC., said at first he was “peeved” when he heard Clinton was paid $150,000 for the “rambling” speech, during which Clinton took several “gratuitous shots” at Republicans and blamed U.S. doctors for many of the healthcare problems in third world countries. When he and like-minded members made their objections known to the organization, they were told the fee was paid by an “anonymous” donor.

Radiological Society of North America spokesman Marijo Millette told FoxNews.com the group “strives to provide compelling speakers that will satisfy the educational needs and special interests of a diverse audience.”



Related Image
Expand / Contract
Clinton's appearance raised concerns among members of the Radiological Society of North America, who wanted to know who paid the bill.



Millette would not comment on Friedman's claim, which was also reported by trade media, but said Clinton's fee and travel expenses were paid to the Harry Walker Agency, which represents Clinton. The organization’s 990 forms, filed with the Internal Revenue Service and required to maintain its 501(c)3 status, do not list any payment to Clinton or his representative. Neither the executive director nor three executive board members contacted by FoxNews.com would divulge who paid Clinton's fee.

Matthew Whitaker, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, a Washington-based, non-partisan campaign and ethics watchdog group, said the anonymous donation “opens up a Pandora’s box of questions including who funded this speech and what their motivations were.”

“This issue has to be resolved," Whitaker told FoxNews.com. "There has to be an answer as to who gave the money. “It has the smell of someone trying to move money through an organization to curry favor with the former president. It also calls into question almost every speech Bill Clinton as made and who the ultimate funder is.”

Neither Clinton's representatives at Harry Walker nor at the Clinton Foundation responded to a request for the name of the mystery sponsor. It was not clear if other speeches by Clinton were similarly funded by anonymous third parties.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a Washington D.C.-based government watchdog foundation, said much of the $48 million Bill Clinton made from 215 speeches during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State went to the Clintons' personal coffers, not to the foundation. Federal disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton for 2010 record her husband’s compensation as $150,000 from the Oak Brook, Ill.-based group, but critics say the lack of transparency about where the money really came from raises serious questions.

“Bill and Hillary Clinton are married, so under the law, paying him for a speech is like giving money directly to her – to the Secretary of State,” Fitton said. “I cannot think of a comparable ‘pay to play’ scandal.”

Clinton gave 542 speeches around the world between 2001 and 2013, earning $104.9 million, and delivered another 53 speeches between January 2014 and May 2015, earning an additional $13.5 million, according to reports by Fox News and the Washington Post. The former president's speaking fees have ranged from $28,100 for a 2001 talk at the London School of Economics to $750,000 for a 2011 appearance at an event for Swedish communications company Ericsson.

While Clinton's knowledge of world events and charm as a raconteur is well-documented, critics doubt the sky-high fees are doled out by anonymous parties for sheer entertainment value.

"These donors don't cut checks because they want to hear a brief speech," said Sean Davis, co- founder of The Federalist, a conservative online magazine. "They do it to gain access or favors from the Clintons. The Clintons owe voters a clear explanation of who is funneling them this money and why.”
 

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
IF a cake was worth 135k in a court battle what would a life be worth?

HOMICIDE
Can Kate Steinle's family sue San Francisco over its sanctuary city policy?

By Heather Hansen

Published July 10, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook41 Twitter41 livefyre93 Email Print


FILE -- July 2, 2015: Liz Sullivan, left, and Jim Steinle, right, parents of Kathryn "Kate" Steinle, talk to members of the media outside their home in Pleasanton, Calif. (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP)

Looking for justice? Move to Mexico. When it comes to looking to the U.S. courts for protection, you may have a better chance if you’re from south of the border.

Kathryn "Kate" Steinle was shot dead on July 1, in the U.S. illegally. Lopez-Sanchez would have been deported but for the fact that San Francisco is a "sanctuary city," which is why officials there chose to release him and ignore an ICE detainer. This effectively put him back on the street. And yet, if Steinle's family tries to sue the city for this travesty, it may be thrown out of court.



NOW PLAYING
What does a sanctuary city entail?

Meanwhile, in Arizona, a judge has just denied a motion to dismiss a case brought by the mother of a Mexican teen who was shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in a cross-border shooting. You read that right. The teen was Mexican, shot in Mexico, and the judge still ruled that his mother may sue the Border Patrol agent. U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins opined that "the Mexican national may avail himself to the protections of the Fourth Amendment and that the agent may not assert qualified immunity." The ACLU attorney on the case applauded this ruling, saying, "The court was right to recognize that constitutional protections don't stop at the border."

Perhaps they begin there. If Kate Steinle's family cannot use our laws to get justice in her name, and yet the family of this Mexican teen can, the immigration debate has truly become the twilight zone.

If Kate Steinle's family cannot use our laws to get justice in her name, and yet the family of this Mexican teen can, the immigration debate has truly become the twilight zone.

There is good reason to suspect that Steinle's family will have an uphill climb in any lawsuit it may pursue. In January of 2011, a California appeals court upheld the dismissal of a similar suit. In that case, Anthony Bologna and his two sons were murdered by Edwin Ramos, a Salvadoran. Bologna’s wife sued the city of San Francisco over the sanctuary policy in place at the time, and the appeals court unanimously agreed that the case did not fall under a legal exception allowing such lawsuits against governmental entities. The court ruled that none of the laws cited in the lawsuit were specifically aimed at preventing violent crimes by illegal immigrants. Instead, the court ruled, they were intended to combat the drug trade and to curb illegal immigration.

However, there are other ways for the Steinle family to pursue their case against San Francisco. First of all, less than a year after the Bologna family's case was dismissed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v U.S. that the states can't overstep the federal government's immigration enforcement authority. While many felt that ruling took away Arizona's ability to combat illegal immigration, it also may have opened the door for the Steinles. If, as the court ruled, only the federal government has the power in the area of immigration, then any sanctuary city or state law is unconstitutional. This alone should provide the basis for a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco.

Sanctuary cities may violate the Illegal Immigrants Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Under that federal law, states and cities may not limit their governments from maintaining records regarding a person's immigration status, or bar the exchange of information with federal entities.

Officials in San Francisco seem to know they are on thin ice.

In a 2009 memo from San Francisco deputy attorneys to then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, the attorneys point out that no one has challenged their City of RefugeOrdinance under that federal law. They also warn that there is a serious risk a court will find the entire City of Refuge Ordinance to be pre-empted by federal law. It is time for that challenge – before another innocent American has to die.

If a Mexican mother can sue a Border Patrol agent for doing his job, then certainly the family of a slain American should be able to sue the City of San Francisco and its officials for not doing theirs.

Heather Hansen is a litigator at O'Brien and Ryan, LLC She is a legal analyst for hngn.com. Visit her website at heatherhansentv.com. Follow her on[email protected].


 

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
I don't get it. What case does the Steinle family have? What are the grounds for a lawsuit?
We will have to wait and see. I am not a lawyer so I don't know. But we will more than likely here more about it. It sounded like he was deported several times and I don't know how long ago or where he was when all the deportations took place. But if he was still being a criminal in SF and they were just letting him go to pursue more crimes then they might be looking at that against the city. imo
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
We will have to wait and see. I am not a lawyer so I don't know. But we will more than likely here more about it. It sounded like he was deported several times and I don't know how long ago or where he was when all the deportations took place. But if he was still being a criminal in SF and they were just letting him go to pursue more crimes then they might be looking at that against the city. imo
ICE had a hold on him.

your best course of action is to keep your mouth shut to prevent further exposure of your never ending stupidity.
 

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
Thats not giving the black community much credit for there taste in women. You suck at being a super hero poopy pants.
 
Top