Mediaboss Marketing

Getty Images

Corbis

Radar exclusively obtained an advance copy of Unlikeable -- The Problem with Hillary by Edward Klein before its official publication date of September 28. And the allegations inside are sure to rock Clinton's presidential campaign!

Getty Images

According to Klein, Clinton is secretly facing "mounting health issues" that cannot be ignored.

Getty Images

Bouts of insomnia have "worried her, because it sapped her energy just when she needed it most for the campaign," Klein wrote.

Getty Images

The friend continued, "She is exhausted and depressed a lot of the time."

Corbis

In fact, the friend claimed, Clinton even turned to sleeping pills like Ambien and Lunesta in her desperation, but they offered no relief. Said the friend, "She said they made her less sharp the next day."

Corbis

As Radar reported, Clinton suffered a life-threatening blood clot on her brain in late 2012. Since then, Klein claimed, she has "constantly worried she was developing another blood clot"

Corbis

"There were incidents on the campaign trail when she felt faint and nearly swooned," he claimed. "Those incidents were kept secret."

Getty Images

For more stunning allegations from Klein's explosive book, stay with Radar!

See the article here:

Hillary Clinton Health Issues Tell All Claims | Radar Online

Last Thursday, 14 people were arrested during protests. On Friday, the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux, Dave Archambault, was arrested along with five others. And on Monday, at least 10 were taken into custody. The charges range from disorderly conduct for blocking access to the site to pushing back on a police line. Developers on Thursday said they were halting construction until a federal court hearing next week. But this isn't just about the threat to Native American grave sites. Setting aside that it is hard to imagine that the pipeline would be going ahead if it were to cut through the graves of white people, the pipeline is also in clear violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie, signed in 1868 between the United States and various Native American tribes and nations, including the Standing Rock Sioux. That document guarantees land, sovereignty, and hunting rights, and promises that the territory will "be closed to all whites."

The facts of this injustice are clear. The question now is whether Clinton will weigh in.

None of this is to overlook the role that President Barack Obama could still play.

Another agreement and promise has been broken, Mr. President. Where are you?

And speaking of elected officials, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has long claimed to be of North American indigenous parentage, has a distinct opportunity to prove that she is at last with us -- that she shares in those revered and honorable Native American traditions of solidarity and resistance.

But she cannot prove this if she stays quiet on this issue. The senator could utilize her influential platform to stand with Native Americans in opposition to this treaty violation and the desecration of burial grounds. We can only hope that she chooses to do so.

In the meantime, Native Americans and our non-Native American allies will continue to protest the pipeline that may very well, sooner or later, fail and poison the water as these pipelines too often do. Chelsey Luger, Lakota from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, told me she believes that it is not a question of if, but when this pipeline will cause a spill, adding that she hopes Clinton will speak up, and soon.

"If Hillary Clinton were to at the very least make a statement of support for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, it would be a much needed display of affirmative support for the health and well-being of Native (Americans) across the United States," Luger said. "We need her support, and we'd prefer it now as a preventative action than later as a reaction to crisis."

If candidate Clinton does nothing to address this issue yet continues into November promising Native Americans that she is our champion, then her words will be nothing but false promises -- just more bombast, more white lies to Indians.

But if she voices her opposition to the pipeline, if she proves to us that she is a woman of her word, then that would send a message that while Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks, she acts.

First, though, she has to act. You're up, Mrs. Clinton.

See the original post here:
Hillary Clinton must speak up over pipeline (Opinion ...

There is, however, a lot of eagerness to talk about how to make the program more generous to those who need it most.

Democrats have proposed a number of ways to expand Social Security benefits. Hillary Clinton has publicly embraced two of them -- expanding benefits for lower-income widows and unpaid caregivers.

As with most of her other proposals, Clinton plans to raise taxes on the rich to pay for it.

Here's what she backs:

Give more generous benefits to lower-income widows

Today, when one spouse in a retired couple dies, the surviving spouse sees a drop in what had been their joint monthly Social Security income.

For example, say a couple receives $2,400 a month in combined benefits -- $1,200 for each spouse based on their individual earnings records. When one spouse dies, the other would only receive $1,200 -- or 50% of the couple's joint benefits.

Even though the surviving spouse's expenses may drop somewhat, they're unlikely to drop by half.

For couples whose individual benefits are not identical, the surviving spouse would receive a monthly check that typically represents 60% to 70% of the couple's joint income from the program.

Clinton would like to bolster what widows or widowers get to ensure they don't experience financial hardship or fall into poverty simply by virtue of a partner dying, according to a campaign official.

How much she'd do so isn't clear. Her campaign says she'd work with Congress to establish the parameters.

But previous proposals would limit the drop to between 67% and 75% of a couple's joint Social Security income, according to Ben Veghte, vice president for policy at the National Academy of Social Insurance and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

And to ensure the rule would only protect lower-income retirees, some proposals would also cap the dollar amount of the surviving spouse's benefits.

Give Social Security credits to unpaid caregivers

Your Social Security retirement benefits are determined based on your 35 highest earning years.

If some of those 35 years are zero-earning or very low-earning years -- as they are for those who stay home full-time or part-time to care for children or a disabled or ill family member -- that will lower their Social Security benefits in retirement.

Clinton hasn't specified how her proposal would work yet, but it's not a new idea.

Democratic bills introduced in the House and Senate, for instance, would assign Social Security credits for unpaid caregiving for up to five years to increase the caregivers' benefits in retirement.

How Clinton would pay for it

Today, the first $118,500 of wages are subject to the 12.4% Social Security tax, half of which (6.2%) is paid by employees and half by employers.

Under Clinton's plan, she'd also apply that tax to at least some income over $250,000 as well.

In addition, she would apply the payroll tax to income not currently subject to it. The campaign didn't specify, but presumably investment income could be hit.

These are also the only solutions Clinton has publicly endorsed as a way to cure Social Security's long-term shortfall. By 2034, barring any changes, the program will only be taking in enough revenue to pay 79% of promised benefits, according to projections by the Social Security trustees.

Clinton has said she doesn't favor other solutions, such as cutting benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, raising the retirement age or using a more stringent formula to figure annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Taxing the rich is also the way Clinton has chosen to fund her non-Social Security proposals, which include infrastructure spending and providing free tuition for in-state students at public schools.

But leaning so heavily on high-income Americans to pay for everything has two potential shortcomings. It will be a tough sell if Republicans remain the majority in the House or Senate. And it will limit how much more the rich can be tapped to pay for anything else that may come up.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 18, 2016: 1:16 PM ET

See the original post here:
How Hillary Clinton would expand Social Security

WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

Updated: Tuesday, August 16, 2016, 7:55 PM

WASHINGTON Notes of the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton that were shared with congressional staff Tuesday afternoon showed the Democratic nominee indeed was "extremely careless" with classified information, while offering no obvious examples that she had previously misled Congress in her testimony, according to those familiar with the contents of the documents.

A Democrat with knowledge of the report's contents said that while Clinton's interview suggested a pattern of recklessness and lack of sophistication in regards to security measures, everything she said was consistent with her previous statements to Congress.

That testimony explains why FBI Director James Comey described her as being "extremely careless" with classified information when he announced the department recommended against prosecution.

House and Senate staff were initially not allowed to take any notes on the sole copy of the report each branch of Congress received in a classified setting, and were limited in the time they were allowed to look at it.

FBI wanted DOJ to probe Clinton Foundation but DOJ refused:report

That prevented a comprehensive review of the material, which included more than a dozen pages of notes of the interview with Clinton as well as the more than 100 emails the FBI says contained classified information at the time they were sent. The FBI ordered that the details of the report, much of which was classified as secret, should not be disseminated publicly.

Clinton's campaign called for the notes to be widely released, pointing out the "extraordinarily rare step" of releasing the information at all is a break with the FBI's normal protocol. As a general rule, when the FBI decides against recommending prosecution they don't share the details of their decision-making process.

"We believe that if these materials are going to be shared outside the Justice Department, they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks," Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told NBC.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the notes of the interview should be available to the public.

FBI probed Clinton's email server to see if it was 'compromised'

"The FBI should make as much of the material available as possible. The public's business ought to be public, with few exceptions. The people's interest would be served in seeing the documents that are unclassified. The FBI has made public statements in describing its handling of the case, so sharing documents in support of those statements wherever appropriate would make sense. Right now, the public is at a disadvantage and has only part of the story," the Iowa Republican said.

See the article here:
Hillary Clinton was 'careless' but didn't mislead Congress ...

The Clinton Foundation announced Thursday that it would no longer accept donations from corporations or foreign entities if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

The decision comes amid mounting criticism of how the foundation operated during her tenure as secretary of state, potentially allowing donors to seek special access through her government post.

Former president Bill Clinton also announced to staff Thursday that the final meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative would be held in September in New York City, regardless of the outcome of the election.

A spokesman for the foundation confirmed the decisions, which were first reported by the Associated Press.

The moves also come amid new allegations that foundation donors may have been given favored access while Hillary Clinton ran the State Department. Republican nominee Donald Trump has been highly critical of the foundation for accepting money from foreign governments in particular Saudi Arabia, saying the contributions undermine Clintons record on womens rights.

CGI, launched in 2005, is an arm of the foundation that hosts gatherings bringing together government leaders, private companies and not-for-profit organizations to discuss ways to solve the worlds problems.

The initiatives chief event is an annual meeting in New York City, tied to the United Nations General Assembly. The meetings provide networking opportunities for participants and a forum for private companies to make pledges to conduct charitable projects around the world, monitored by the Clinton Foundation.

The Clintons have long acknowledged that significant changes would need to be made to the foundation in the event that she is elected.

Therell clearly be some changes in what the Clinton Foundation does and how we do it, and well just have to cross that bridge when we come to it, Bill Clinton said at a CGI event in Atlanta in June.

[Two Clintons, 41 years, $3 billion: Inside the Clinton donor network.]

According to a newly released batch of emails obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch through a public records lawsuit, a foundation aide asked State Department staff to arrange a meeting on behalf of a foundation donor, a wealthy Nigerian businessman of Lebanese descent who had donated between $1 million and $5 million, according to disclosure reports.

The official said that he never connected with the businessman and denied that anyone had asked him to meet with the man.

Following the release last week, Trump accused Clinton of breaking the law and engaging in pay to play practices.

Trump and his family members have donated to the foundation in the past. When asked about it on the campaign trail, he has said that he regrets doing so, accusing the foundation of mismanaging its finances.

The Boston Globes editorial board called on the Clintons this week to shutter the foundation if she became president, saying it would pose an unacceptable conflict, given that some donors were foreign governments and corporations.

The inherent conflict of interest was obvious when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, the Globe wrote. She promised to maintain a separation between her official work and the foundation, but recently released emails written by staffers during her State Department tenure make clear that the supposed partition was far from impregnable.

[Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State]

The sentiment was echoed by Clinton ally and former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell in a recent interview with the New York Daily News.

Itd be impossible to keep the foundation open without at least the appearance of a problem, Rendell said.

The foundation, which was renamed the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation after Hillary Clinton left the State Department, has operated since 1997 and expanded in subsequent years into an international charity. It has never previously restricted contributions from foreign citizens and companies or domestic corporations.

After Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign in 2015, she stepped down from the board, and the foundation promised to disclose its donors more frequently and limit foreign governments that could donate to a select list engaged in particular projects.

The foundation had also put in place certain restrictions on accepting donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. It said it would seek State Department approval for any new foreign government donations or any substantial increase in donations from a preexisting government donor. But the rules did not prevent the foundation from accepting millions of dollars in foreign government donations while she was in office.

A 2015 Washington Post report also revealed a government donation that was not properly submitted to the State Department for approval.

According to a 2015 Post analysis of foundation donors, a third of contributors who had given more than $1 million were foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States.

Jose A. DelReal contributed to this report.

View post:
Clinton Foundation to restrict foreign, corporate donations ...