Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Quincy Jones on Hillary Clinton, The Beatles, and who killed JFK…

A very interesting interview with the legendary music producer, to say the least…

You just mentioned the Clintons, who are friends of yours. Why is there still such visceral dislike of them? What are other people not seeing in Hillary, for example, that you see?

It’s because there’s a side of her — when you keep secrets, they backfire.

Like what secrets?

This is something else I shouldn’t be talking about.

You sure seem to know a lot.

I know too much, man.

What’s something you wish you didn’t know?

Who killed Kennedy.

Who did it?

[Chicago mobster Sam] Giancana. The connection was there between Sinatra and the Mafia and Kennedy. Joe Kennedy — he was a bad man — he came to Frank to have him talk to Giancana about getting votes.

What were your first impressions of the Beatles?

That they were the worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing motherfuckers. Paul was the worst bass player I ever heard. And Ringo? Don’t even talk about it. I remember once we were in the studio with George Martin, and RingoJones arranged a version of “Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing” for Starr’s 1970 solo debut album Sentimental Journey, which was produced by the Beatles’ frequent collaborator George Martin. The song, and album, are more than a bit gloopy. had taken three hours for a four-bar thing he was trying to fix on a song. He couldn’t get it. We said, “Mate, why don’t you get some lager and lime, some shepherd’s pie, and take an hour-and-a-half and relax a little bit.” So he did, and we called Ronnie Verrell, a jazz drummer. Ronnie came in for 15 minutes and tore it up. Ringo comes back and says, “George, can you play it back for me one more time?” So George did, and Ringo says, “That didn’t sound so bad.” And I said, “Yeah, motherfucker because it ain’t you.” Great guy, though.

Why FBI director made Clinton email announcement now…

DJ Blendz note: Hillary’s emails?..again? Zzzzz
—————————————————————————————-

Why did FBI Director James Comey shock Washington on Friday with an announcement that the FBI “has learned of the existence of emails” related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and what does it mean?

The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true.

Comey’s letter to congressional committee chairs doesn’t say his agents have discovered new witnesses or documents suggesting a criminal act occurred. Rather, he only suggests that evidence that has not yet been examined needs to be reviewed because it is relevant to the case.

There’s also a political dimension. Had Comey not told Congress and it emerged after the election that new materials had come into its possession, the director and his entire agency’s credibility might have been questioned.

In his letter, Comey did not use the phrase being touted by Republicans that the case had been reopened. Technically it was never closed. Nor did he signal at all about the importance or unimportance about the emails.

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” he said in his letter to the chairs. “Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update you.”

On the other hand, Comey did not offer any indication from whence the new evidence comes. By his omission he’s left a country in suspense. Later in the day, news reports, unconfirmed by Newsweek, indicated that the emails were found in the course of an investigation of Anthony Weiner, the former New York congressman who is married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and that they were found on a device of Weiner’s. He and Abedin announced a marital separation this summer after he was revealed to be exchanging lewd photos and emails with women, one of whom was reportedly underaged.

Republicans were jubilant on Friday, seeing the Comey letter as something that could save the flailing Donald Trump campaign for president. The GOP nominee himself heaped praise on the FBI director after castigating him since his summer announcement that the bureau had not recommended a criminal charge be brought against Clinton.

“I have great respect for the fact that the FBI and the Department of Justice are now willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistake that they made,” Trump said at a rally in New Hampshire early Friday afternoon. “This was a grave miscarriage of justice that the American people fully understood. And it is everybody’s hope that it is about to be corrected.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan called for an end to Clinton receiving classified briefings.

Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, called on Comey to immediately release more details about the new evidence. Campaigning in Iowa, Clinton read a brief statement before a group of reporters and answered a couple of questions. She did not answer a question about whether she had discussed the matter with Abedin. The Democratic nominee echoed Podesta’s call for Comey to release more information: “Let’s get it out.” Clinton laughed when she a reporter asked her if Comey’s letter would “sink” the campaign.

Stock market has already picked the next US president…

Wall Street loves a sure thing. Trump is too unpredictable for them…

The GOP is traditionally known as the party of Wall Street, but this year investors, for the most part, are betting against the Republican standard-bearer.

“The market appears to have decided not only that [Hillary] Clinton will win, but that it won’t be close,” David Woo, a strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a report distributed Monday. “Investors like landslide victories.”

Woo noted that the S&P 500 has risen more than 4% since July 5, which marks the beginning of the 90-trading-day countdown to the election on Nov. 8. During years when presidential candidates won by a margin of more than 80% of Electoral College votes, the S&P 500 posted average returns of 8.4% in the 90 days leading up to the election.

The last time stocks outperformed the current rally at the halfway point was when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984.

“To us, this implies that the market is expecting Hillary Clinton to either maintain or increase her already sizable lead over Donald Trump in the opinion polls,” Woo said, citing the Iowa Electronic Markets, an indicator giving Clinton an 80% chance of beating Trump.

The IEM is a futures market operated for research purposes by the University of Iowa Tippie College of Business.
Earlier this year, Sam Stovall, U.S. equity strategist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, noted that the S&P 500 has a fairly good record of predicting election results.

Since 1944, the incumbent person or party was reelected 82% of the time when the S&P 500 rose between July 31 and Oct. 31, according to Stovall. The only exceptions were in 1968 and 1980, when there were popular third-party candidates in the picture.

“Whenever the S&P 500 fell in price during these three months, however, it signaled the replacement of the incumbent 86% of the time,” he said.

The latest polling numbers show Clinton leading Trump in most voter surveys, according to news and data aggregator RealClearPolitics.

The S&P 500 hit a record high of 2,193.81 on Aug. 15 and is poised to extend its rally to six straight months. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also is flirting with a slight gain in August—which would be its seventh monthly rise in a row, according to FactSet.

Meanwhile, the market is also expecting a split Congress and very little change in policy, according to Woo.

The volatility of the euro-dollar pairing , which the strategist views as a good proxy to measure the risk of change in the U.S. versus the rest of the world, is at a 2016 low, implying subdued expectations for policy change.

“The combination of a Democratic president and a split Congress likely means gridlock,” Woo said. “If this scenario materializes, the experience of the past six years suggests there is little chance of a major change in the fundamental economic policies of the most important country in the world in the foreseeable future.”

As a result, investors could expect lower interest rates and a weaker dollar. But in the event the same party wins the White House and control of Congress, the greenback will strengthen and rates will rise, Woo said.

“What is happening now is a very complex strategy being orchestrated by John Podesta. They are very aware that she is almost certainly going to have to confront this issue in full before she gets to the White House. She cannot make it to the White House without first discussing the Rockefeller Initiative with the American people”

Interview with Stephen Bassett of PRG on post-disclosure and Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks on UFO’s

Given the recent coverage in the Times, which is certainly a mainstream, very well-respected paper, were you happy with that story?

[Laughs] Happy. Uh. The Times finally got into the political aspect of this issue, 17 months after the competition was out there. It’s 17 months behind the curve. More importantly, the New York Times has the worst record on this issue of any paper in the United States, of any size. Probably the worst record of any major paper would be the Times of London.

So yeah, after 20 years of pounding this, and after 17 months of generating unprecedented political coverage, it was nice that the New York Times entered the field. They contacted me. I spent an hour with Amy Chozick at the Times offices. Gave her a tremendous amount of material and contact. I’m the principal source on the article. Now, that’s not reflected in the article, because the Times is not … the article is not about me. That’s fine; she did a good piece. And she has a lot more information than that.

You know a little bit of hockey, right? So in the last two days, we have seen the hat trick. In a space of two days, we have had an article in the New York Times, the Times of London, and the Washington Times. Which just kind of reflects that things are moving along pretty rapidly.

I hope that this is only just the beginning. This is the biggest news story in history. And I don’t mean Clinton; I mean the presence of extraterrestrials. And it’s high time that the paper of record finally got on board.

And what would you say the primary failing of the coverage of these issues is, by the Times and by other respected media outlets?

Primary failure is to do appropriate journalism. Look, the truth embargo in this issue, which used to be called the UFO cover-up, began to be put together right after Roswell, in ’47.

In order for the truth embargo to work, the U.S. government had to get the cooperation of the major newspapers and the networks. There were only three [networks] back then, and they were pretty much at the government’s command. They were part of the truth embargo. They serviced it. They knew there were limits, there were places they couldn’t go, there were lines they couldn’t cross. And as the years unfolded, they stayed with it.

But when the Cold War ended in ’92, and then, the Internet era starts to really accelerate in ’95, the ability for those entities … to sort of contain the issue by not doing appropriate journalism has been eroding rapidly. And so the issue is overwhelming them; it’s like they’ve been running from a tsunami that’s finally caught up with them.

Do we have proof of that? No. Is there any paper trail? Not likely. But I guarantee you, the Graham family [of the Washington Post], the publishers of the New York Times, worked out arrangements with the government to what their limits are on their coverage of this issue.

Do you think the remarks that Clinton has made in recent months go far enough? Is she the best candidate in terms of dealing with these types of issues or lifting the “embargo”?

Paradigm Research Group’s political initiative is not about electing any particular person. The reason that Secretary Clinton is the focus of this is because of her historical connection to the issue via the Rockefeller Initiative, ’93 to ’96. Which she has refused to talk about, and no one in the Clinton team has talked about it or mentioned it since.

However, that’s changing because, starting in January of 2015, reporters that had been brought into this are now getting pretty intense into it, had been contacting her campaign and contacting John Podesta with questions. And they’re not answering them. Not a “no comment,” but no response.

What is happening now is a very complex strategy being orchestrated by John Podesta. They are very aware that she is almost certainly going to have to confront this issue in full before she gets to the White House. She cannot make it to the White House without first discussing the Rockefeller Initiative with the American people. So the strategy, I believe, that Podesta, who is a brilliant man, is pursuing is that he and she are making statements, on cable news and on late-night talk shows, in tweets to the public and so forth, which are laying a track record of comments, which will insulate them against potential backlash when this thing blows out.

But I can assure you that John Podesta would not be giving the interviews he’s given, he would not be putting out those tweets, and Secretary Clinton would certainly not have said what she said to the Conway Daily Sun, on Jimmy Kimmel, or on Power 105 FM in New York, if these individuals did not think that this phenomena was absolutely true. If they knew quite well that there was nothing to this—it was just a 60-year misunderstanding between the human race and the cosmos—then they would be saying none of this. The very fact they’re speaking at all should be a red flag to every single journalist.

If you think that these things are political positioning, are you still hopeful that the Clinton presidency would bring some kind of opening of the documents? Or do you think it’s going to die out after?

I have no intention, and the movement has no intention, of rolling the dice on what Secretary Clinton will or will not do when she becomes president. She is the catalyst here. Obama is going to be the disclosure president. Because when the media storm finally launches, and the Pentagon is staring down the prospect of 500 reporters with their hair on fire, standing in front of the Pentagon spokesman or [White House Press Secretary] Josh Earnest, at that point, the Pentagon is going to have to give up its regal authority over this issue. And it’s going to have to stoop to working out an arrangement with the president and the White House as to the protocols and particulars about a disclosure event and the immediate aftermath. The Pentagon and the White House will cut that deal, and he will be the disclosure president.

If, by some miracle, the situation remains in stasis all the way through the election, and Secretary Clinton wins the election, the Paradigm Research Group and this movement is going to literally rain pressure down upon her. And we will marshal millions of people around the world; she’s going to see more emails to her campaign than she ever dreamed. And if, by some miracle, she actually gets to the White House and it still hasn’t blown sky high, then we have a lot to use to hold her feet to the fire. But being the president, you can basically tell everybody to just go pound sand. So I don’t want to get to that point.

If Obama does announce the E.T. presence, she has a fair chance to be the first full-term post-disclosure president. And the fact is, the first full-term post-disclosure president is going to have enormous influence on the policies and developments in the post-disclosure world, which will be one of the most extraordinary times you or I or anybody else could ever imagine living through.

And what do you think, exactly, is going to be disclosed? Or, you don’t know?

No, disclosure is easy. Disclosure is specifically stated by the advocacy movement as the formal acknowledgement of the extraterrestrial presence by heads of state. The moment the words come out of Barack Obama’s mouth—we have an extraterrestrial presence engaging us—that is disclosure.

Now, anything else we learn after that will be a negotiation between the White House and the Pentagon and the American people, with the media almost exclusively on the side of the American people. And that negotiation will be a dramatic tug of war. And over the weeks and months that follow disclosure, information will emerge. Exactly what, and how much, and when remains to be seen.

In terms of the initial disclosure, you’re saying that either Obama or Clinton will acknowledge that someone in the U.S. has had contact with extraterrestrial life?

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That’s not disclosure. Disclosure is the announcement of an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race, however it is engaging. It’s not about the specifics. That this phenomena that we have been seeing all around the world for seven decades is extraterrestrial in origin. That is it.

Secretary Clinton can’t make that announcement; she’s not the president. All she can do is answer truthfully her full involvement in the Rockefeller Initiative and give explanations for the comments going back to 2002 of her campaign chairman, her husband, and so forth.

When you say extraterrestrial presence, what would you define that as?

Non-human, intelligent beings, almost certainly from other planetary systems, of which we now know there are billions, with interstellar travel, maneuvering around in our airspace in advanced, anti-gravitic craft, and very possibly operating on the ground in various ways. That’s the extraterrestrial presence, at minimum.

So, it doesn’t necessarily mean ground presence?

Well, we know they’re on the ground. They’re seen on the ground, they’re seen landing. So yeah, they’re on the ground. Do they have bases here? Not confirmed. But I assure you, they’re not just flying around watching us, no. There’s a lot more to it than that.

Are they living amongst us? This is a question that’s often asked. I don’t know.

Do you believe Clinton or any other government personnel have had contact, or do you believe that they just have access to documents?

Well, first of all, no, they don’t have access to documents. The Pentagon does not consider the president on a need-to-know basis. They have the same access to the evidence in the public domain, which is massive. They don’t have any access to inside government stuff held within the military intelligence community.

As far as contact, I have no way of knowing if any members of the Clinton political team or members of Congress or members of the Pentagon are contactees. No way to know. But, given the numbers that we think are out there, it’s likely there are some. But that’s not that important right now. What’s important is the E.T. presence being announced, and then we’ll go from there.

I’m not going to claim to be studied up on this, the exact details of the contact, but if you had to explain to someone what it has consisted of, other than that there’s been events or strange occurrences that have been observed by people all over the world, is there any particular—?

Look, the contact phenomena is a very complicated and advanced aspect of this, which really cannot be addressed until post-disclosure. And it won’t be easy, and it won’t be comfortable.

The only thing I will say about it now [is] over the last 30 years, nearly one million written accounts, maybe even more than one million written accounts from individuals describing contact of one type or another, have been sent to researchers around the world and rest in their files right now. Most of these have been reviewed by one or more researchers. There is a consistency to these reports that is extremely persuasive. And that’s really all I can say at this point.

You must get this question all the time, but what do you say to the people who just say you’re a conspiracy theorist or a guy who allows his hope to seep into his perception?

First of all, almost no one says that to me. You get the occasional remarks in comment sections by trolls on the Internet, but no. I meet with people on the Hill; no one says this to me. Because people who are in the know, people who are well-informed know full well that this is true. But to anybody who wants to challenge it or wants to make a comment like that, my answer is always pretty much the same: “You know, you’ll figure it out when you figure it out.”

It’s not about convincing, it’s about getting government policy changed. And there are plenty of people who simply don’t know what’s going on, they’re not informed. I don’t take offense. It’s not a problem, and it’s not going to affect the disclosure movement much at all.

Knowing what you do, and having done the research that you’ve done, you don’t think we’re in danger, do you? You don’t think this is a national security or global security issue?

By definition, the presence of extraterrestrials is a national security matter and has been from day one. I understand that, that’s why I call it a truth embargo and not a cover-up. It was perfectly legal for national security reasons.

Second, based on what I know of the totality of the evidence, I am relatively confident that after disclosure’s taken place, and even after open contact, which I believe will probably follow within a relatively short time, the world’s people will be pleased with what they have learned and where this is going. That is my view. If I had hard evidence we were in for an extremely rough time, I would say so. I don’t see it. Doesn’t mean that’s not the case.

But now, I want to add number three. And this is a meme that’s been out in the Net for some time, fortunately: We have to be extremely wary that some element of the government—doesn’t have to be the entire government—or intelligence branches may foolishly decide that selling an alien threat as part of the disclosure process will serve their interests. Because, you know, every nation in the world has got its certain share of war mongers running the show. And, trying to sell, falsely, an alien threat would be a colossal blunder on the part of government, which is not unfamiliar with colossal blunders.

On the other hand, if there is an awful threat by extraterrestrials, and they come forward with clear evidence in a forthright way, then we will listen and act accordingly.

And knowing the sort of vitriolic rhetoric of Donald Trump, are you worried about what he might say about all this?

Over the last 26 years, we have seen one of the worst and most vicious eras of political partisanship in American history. And where the two parties are attacking everything, everything, and candidates are attacking everything: your looks, your dress, your clothes, your relatives, your cat, your dog, making up lies if they have to, revealing every skeleton in every closet. It’s absolutely a bloodbath.

And yet, even though the Republicans were well aware of the Rockefeller Initiative, during the most bizarre campaign in history, in all of that time, not a single Republican candidate or the RNC has ever attacked any member of the Clinton political team over the extraterrestrial issue. No tinfoil hats, no beanies, no nothing. And that is inconceivable. If Hillary Clinton wore a mismatched pantsuit, she would be ripped by right-wing press. The reason the Republicans have not dared to attack the Clintons on this issue is because the Republican brain trust is fully aware there’s an extraterrestrial presence.

Is it your view that Clinton is a better “E.T. candidate” than Trump?

A better question would be: Who would be the best post-disclosure president? And all I can say is that, of the three remaining candidates, the only one who has a historical record to the issue is Secretary Clinton. And the only one who has said anything about it is Secretary Clinton.

And so, one might conclude that that would make her the better choice, but maybe not. Because one could also argue that since she’s remained silent for 23 years just to service her own ambitions, she can’t be trusted and we need somebody else. But that’s not my job. My job is to get disclosure now from Obama.

Do you believe in the sci-fi aspect of the government actually having some kind of, the Area 51 theories, where there’s an alien imprisoned or something?

There is evidence that we have crash vehicles and dead bodies and have had living aliens, yes. Captured. That’s not the same thing as working with them hand-to-hand in some underground facility. Do we have underground facilities? Absolutely. Is that where I think most of this is operating? Absolutely. But, do we have arrangements with E.T.s? Not proven. Do the E.T.s have underground bases? Not proven. Likely, but not proven.

And it’s not sci-fi, this is just basic assessments from what we do know. But because of the truth embargo, we have too many theories and not enough facts, which is what the government wants. The more enmeshed you are in theories without facts, the more you just wander around in circles going nowhere. We need to drop the theory quotient and increase the fact quotient by many, many magnitudes.

If you had to lean one way or the other, it would be toward a non-adversarial relationship developing between humans and extraterrestrials?

I can’t predict every aspect or component of the relationship that this planet may have with multiple species.
I would bet that our relationship with the extraterrestrials post-disclosure or post-contact will be quite a bit more comfortable than our relationships with each other. In other words, we’ve got plenty of adversarial relationships in this world, and I doubt the extraterrestrial situation will be any worse than that, if not much better.

Hillary Clinton pledging to “get to the bottom of it” on UFO’s…

Hillary’s trolling UFO researchers so hard right now…

The truth is out there for Hillary Clinton.

When Daymond Steer from the Conway Daily Sun recently asked her to weigh in on UFOs—a topic Steer says he broached with Clinton in 2007—the Democratic presidential candidate reportedly promised to “get to the bottom of it” if she were elected to the White House.

“I think we may have been [visited already],” she added. “We don’t know for sure.”

Clinton’s comments are among the rare public statements she’s made on UFOs and possible government cover-ups—a familiar subject for both Hillary and Bill Clinton. As Mother Jones has reported, the couple’s interest in extraterrestrial activity reaches as far back as the 1990s, when Laurence Rockefeller began lobbying the Clinton administration for the release of government documents relating to UFOs—documents that many say reveal the extent of government research into the phenomena.

Additionally, Clinton’s current campaign chairman, John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and an X-Files fan, has long expressed interest in the topic.

But these statements are Clinton’s first remarks on the subject during this campaign. They will likely strengthen her support among voters who happen to be UFO enthusiasts and are not supporting any extraterrestrial candidates in the Republican field.

Private prison lobbyists raising cash for Hillary Clinton campaign…

Via AHH

As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton.

Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group could both see their fortunes turning if there are fewer people to lock up in the future.

Last week, Clinton and other candidates revealed a number of lobbyists who are serving as “bundlers” for their campaigns. Bundlers collect contributions on behalf of a campaign, and are often rewarded with special favors, such as access to the candidate.

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit.

As we reported yesterday, fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Akin Gump lobbyist and Clinton bundler Brian Popper disclosed that he previously helped CCA defeat efforts to compel private prisons to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Hillary Clinton has a complicated history with incarceration. As first lady, she championed efforts to get tough on crime. “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” Clinton said in 1994. “The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets,” she added.

In recent months, Clinton has tacked left in some ways, and now calls for alternatives to incarceration and for greater police accountability. And while Clinton has backed a path to citizenship for undocumented people in America, she recently signaled a willingness to crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities,” a move that could lead to more immigrant detentions.

The future of both criminal justice reform and immigration are critical for private prison firms. The Geo Group, in a disclosure statement for its investors, notes that its business could be “adversely affected by changes in existing criminal or immigration laws, crime rates in jurisdictions in which we operate, the relaxation of criminal or immigration enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction, sentencing or deportation practices, and the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws or the loosening of immigration laws.”