So is the Swiss bank deal nothing more than a vast right wing conspiracy against the Clintons?

[Skwmom]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492

Facts per the article:

IRS wants the names of 52,000 secret account holders in Switzerland and federal prosecutors go after USB, the foreign Swiss bank, to get them.

In early 2009, Hillary Clinton, as SOS flies to Switzerland, reaches a deal and only 4,450 names are released. This was unusual for a SOS to take such an action, basically cutting the federal prosecutors off at the knees.

AFTERWARDS:

Bill Clinton gets $1,500,000 in speaking fees from the Swiss Bank (USB) making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.

USB donations to the Clinton foundation went from a total of 60,000 by 2008 to 600,000 by 2014.


This isn't the only example were transactions have occurred which raise legitimate questions about whether or not governmental influence was for sale to the highest bidder, including foreign entities.

So is the answer to ever inquiry going to be, hey, don't you know it's a vast right wing conspiracy?

[emulatorloo]

1. Just so you know, WSJ and Fox News are owned by the same guy

neither organizations are above massaging the "facts" to put a slant on them.

[Agschmid]

2. Yup.

[Skwmom]

4. They went after the New York Times. Did they go after the WSJ too?

[emulatorloo]

8. NYT based much of their reporting on a flawed book published by HarperCollins

HarperCollins is owned by that same guy who owns Fox and the WSJ. Rupert Murdoch.

The book was called Clinton Cash, written by a Republican operative, and it was quickly discredited as being full of inaccuracies and things that just weren't true (aka Lies).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/01/1381734/-Where-are-the-New-York-Times-and-Washington-Post-reports-on-Clinton-Cash-errors

Article cited in that daily know piece:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492

Both the NYT and Washington post were bamboozled by that book, which again was published by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc.

[Skwmom]

10. So they didn't go after the WSJ and neither the NYT or the Washington Post, Left Leaning Papers

reported on this being inaccurate. Well, they did remain silent, so I guess that's something...

[fredamae]

3. If it comes out of the blue

it likely isn't true.
The oligarchs are trying to create doubt and fear about any Top Tier Dem candidate.
Do your own research and be well informed no matter who you support and don't allow "them" to divide us. Period.

I have followed my own advice and turned MSM off. Calls are screened. Mailers are immediately in the recycle bin.

[Skwmom]

5. The oligarchs fear Clinton?

[Juicy_Bellows]

9. I'll join you in a good laugh.

Ha! The oligarchs fear Clinton? WOW.

[fredamae]

13. Feel free to laugh

As I said...all top tier Dems and yes, for as much as HRC (imo) would do for the oligarchs/wall street et al....she won't do as much as a GOP POTUS would plus SCOTUS picks.

[onehandle]

6. As SoS Hillary was on President Obama's patrol and carried out his orders.

So this Clinton hating strategy won't work either.

[Skwmom]

7. So Obama made the Clintons do it? He ordered Bill Clinton to take those fees? Really?

[jberryhill]

11. What the federal prosecutors wanted was illegal under Swiss law

Absent a negotiation conducted by the US State Department, the prosecutors would have gotten nothing from the US prosecutors, because the Swiss courts would not uphold enforcement of a subpoena in violation of their laws.

This was not some sort of deal "in favor of the bank". Absent the agreement worked out among the US government, the Swiss government, and the bank, the prosecutors would have gotten bupkus.

[Skwmom]

14. Still doesn't explain the money and why WSJ wasn't asked for a retraction if the facts are false.n/t

OR why she didn't let the federal prosecutors just do their job.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. $1,500,000? I guess they're over being "dead broke" now.

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks. Lord Acton

[Skwmom]

15. I think we can safely say they are in the 1%.

He's earned over 100 million since leaving office. Imagine getting paid that much for merely giving a speech. Seems kind of unbelievable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. The price of bad entertainment has skyrocketed.

[SonderWoman]

16. Actually it is; WSJ