
Now, it’s no surprise that the responses to the Clintons’ Emmy win were less than favorable. After all, they have a long history of controversy and scandal.

Now, it’s no surprise that the responses to the Clintons’ Emmy win were less than favorable. After all, they have a long history of controversy and scandal.
Joshua Caplan – Former investment banker and Wall Street whistleblower Charles Ortel warns billionaire titans such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett should worry about the FBI investigating the Clinton Foundation.
Charles Ortel writes in LifeZette:
The FBI agents and forensic accountants probing the Clinton Foundation must go all the way back to Oct. 23, 1997, and examine precisely how a public charity, organized to hold federal records of the Clinton presidency, somehow evolved by 2002 to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally,” plus a raft of additional tax-exempt purposes that were never properly authorized in the foundation’s Articles of Incorporation. […] Continue reading
Michelle Malkin – How thirsty does Variety look begging readers to join it in doing high V cheerleading moves for Chelsea Clinton?
Thirstier than an ultra-marathoner lost in Death Valley in mid-July.
Hyping the entertainment magazine’s latest cover, Co-Editor-in-Chief Claudia Eller gushed this week, “How cool does Chelsea Clinton look on our Power of Women, NY, cover?”
Welcome to the liberal media’s manufacturing of “cool.” Leather jacket? Check. Overzealous airbrushing? Check. Humanizing grin? Check. Democratic establishment pedigree? Checkity-check-check.
This is just the latest attempt by The Media Resistance to make Chelsea Clinton a thing. The same liberal lunatics in the press who rage about the Trump children’s nepotistic privileges champion the “refreshingly outspoken” daughter of the Clinton dynasty—who, at 37 years old, will receive a “Lifetime Impact” award from Variety on Friday for her “humanitarian work.”

The blistering review — made public Thursday by WikiLeaks — described a tax-exempt public foundation with none of the independent oversight required under federal charity law. The Clinton Foundation reported $187 million in net assets in 2011.


The university actually started with Chelsea as the primary goal, but initially was told that she would not do the speech. They then tried for Hillary Clinton but was told that she would cost $275,000. They then considered “other” women besides Chelsea. That list was impressive, including obvious choices like feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000). You know, women who have made huge contributions not just to their gender but to the country. And they were substantially cheaper. What did Missouri decide? Pay more to get Chelsea for a ten-minute speech to tell people about what it is to be a female leader. Continue reading