When I cite an ID number, that is from the Podesta Wikileaks collection.

The New York Times reported on February 2, 2017 that, “No evidence emerged of a quid pro quo while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state.” Emerged? Was there an investigation? Or do you mean emerged in the media also controlled by and allied with the Clinton faction of the DNC?

I can point out several clear examples of quid pro quo right here. After you read this, you will know, if you choose to know it, that the New York Times is a spin factory, not a legitimate source of news. In ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/17343#efmARzATdAeFAfj her own campaign said that strengthening bribery laws is 'really dicey territory' for her. Why do they think bribery might be dicey if there is no “evidence of a quid pro quo” as the New York Times puts it?

Bill Clinton took one million dollars from Qatar for his birthday (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396#efmAEOAGW). Morocco paid 12 million to meet with Hillary (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22030#efmABAADKADLADiAEeAExAFbAH_AJwAKXAOWAO2). Bill will only talk to the King Of Saudi Arabia for six million dollars (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6775#efmACoADwAIqAJzAOXASM). John Podesta owns $75,000 in shares in a Russian oil company (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4635#efmAFyAGUAWLAYP).

Clinton Foundation Executive, Doug Band says the Clintons have over '500 Different' conflicts of interests (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21978#efmAALABKAD5AGdAGfAHV). No one is closer to Bill Clinton than Doug Band. He says they have hundreds of conflicts of interest. Is that not evidence of conflicts of interest? Is not the whole Band TENEO operation a quid pro quo?

Before Hillary became secretary of state, Bill averaged $150,000 per speech. After she took office, he made $500,000 per speech, as reported by Jim Young of Reuters with David A. Graham, published in the Atlantic on April 23, 2015. Bill was just as much a compelling speaker and just as famous before his wife became secretary of state. Is not the increase in fees evidence that those paying the fees were expecting something other than a speech?

Abu Dhabi government paid Bill Clinton directly, personally (also Clinton Foundation tens of millions in donations) two million dollars and Hillary Clinton arranged for the Abu Dhabi airport to have unprecedented pre-clearance of customs for flights to the US. See Politifact article “Fact-checking 'Clinton Cash' author on claim about Bill Clinton's speaking fees” rated “true,” and the Wall Street Journal, “Speaking Fees Meet Politics for Clintons” December 30, 2015 and the Daily Mail on December 31, 2015, “Bill Clinton's speaking fees draw new attention as they line up with actions his wife's State Department took between 2009 and 2013.” These articles correlate fees paid to favors received, such as customs clearance in the Abu Dhabi airport. Other than the bribes paid to the Clintons, why did Abu Dhabi get customs clearance on the departing end when no other airport has this service?

Doug Band’s infamous memo, in response to Chelsea Clinton’s queries about his enormous fees to the Clinton Foundation (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2874), means, according to the Washington Post (by Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger October 26, 2016), “When top Bill Clinton aide Doug Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. In doing so, Band also detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.”

The government of the poorest country in the world paid Bill Clinton $650,000 to speak, for sure, and the mining company The Lundin Group probably donated to the Clinton Foundation while removing whole villages in the Congo to mine. See Forbes April 17, 2016 ”Why Did Congo Offer Clinton $650,000 For Two Pics And A Speech?” and similar articles.

Free Beacon, on October 19, 2015 in “Emails: Clinton Foundation Donor Lobbied State Department for Haiti Hotels: Foundation donor emailed State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills” reported:

“Richard L. Friedman, a Boston hotel developer emailed Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, to tout the [Haiti Hotel] project on May 17, 2011. “We had a good meeting with Jean-Louis, Marriott executives, [the Overseas Private Investment Corporation], etc regarding building hotels in Haiti—I am pursuing this vigorously and hope to be able to develop 2 to 3 hotels with Marriott as manager,” wrote Friedman. “I am talking with Commerce and Export/Import Bank today.” Friedman said he recently had a discussion with Hillary Clinton at the White House and asked Mills to forward her a note for him. It is unclear what he and Clinton discussed, and portions of his email have been redacted by the State Department due to “personal private interests.” The note he asked Mills to send to Clinton is also redacted. “I will keep you informed about our progress in Haiti—we are going to need all the help we can get,” Friedman wrote Mills. Mills forwarded Friedman’s full email to Clinton and her scheduler, Lona Valmoro, on June 7 with the note “See highlight—resending.” The copy released by the State Department does not indicate which portion of the email Mills highlighted. Friedman contributed between $1,000 and $5,000 to the Clinton Foundation and gave $2,300 to Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, records show. He is not the only Clinton donor associated with Marriott’s efforts in Haiti. The company Digicel Group teamed up with Marriott International in 2011 in Port-au-Prince to build a luxury hotel, which opened earlier this year. Digicel has contributed between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and its owner, the Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien, has donated between $5 million and $10 million. Unigestion Holdings, a subsidiary of Digicel that was reportedly tasked with managing the hotel project, gave between $10,000 and $25,000. Marriott International is also a hefty donor to the Clinton Foundation, contributing between $50,000 and $100,000. According to a Marriott press release on Nov. 28, 2011, the Clinton Foundation helped arrange the partnership between the hotel group and Digicel.”

Hillary and Bill Clinton made 153 million almost entirely (more than 80%) in speaking fees from sources that also lobbied the US government at the same time yet have only 60 million in net worth (assets) as of 2015. The Clintons do have four mansions: a $5.7 million “embassy estate,”a $1.7 million “country-side cottage,” an $11 million “Hampton’s hideaway,” and a $13 million “beachside bungalow.” They also have other assets… still the Forbes figures suggest the Clintons either spent five million dollars every year or are hiding their money. Sources: Forbes, September 29, 2015 “The mystery of the Clinton’s missing millions” and AP, April 21, 2016, “Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov't interests” and CNN, February 6, 2016, “$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented.”

Triple Dip: The Clintons got speaking fees, campaign contributions and foundation contributions from the same organizations most of the time, see Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2015, “How the Clintons Get Away With It: The Clintons are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption.” Doug Band explains this to Chelsea Clinton in the famous memo released by Wikileaks. Add in “investments” with Hillary’s son-in-law and you can quadruple dip.

Huma Abedin: Clinton right-hand woman Abedin worked for the Clinton Foundation and an associated consulting firm while at the State Department (New York Times, “Questions on the Dual Role of a Clinton Aide Persist” August. 18, 2013).

UBS Scandal: Bill Clinton received 1.5 million from Swiss bank UBS and Hillary arranged for the bank to only release only a small fraction of the original list of tens of thousands of multimillionaires with Swiss bank accounts in exchange for Switzerland accepting a couple Weger prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, see the Atlantic “Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons” from July 31, 2015.

Keystone pipeline Canadian backers paid Clinton Foundation a million (Wikileak DNC ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1950) while she was secretary of state and the New York Times suppressed the story.

A memo entitled “Re: 2016 presidential candidates” from May 26, 2015, DNC leak, shows that everyone at the DNC already assumed the democratic candidate would be Clinton. The memo suggests, “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance on HCR.” The DNC clearly knew Hillary was dirty before they nominated her.

Rajiv Fernando Scandal: Hillary put a wealthy donor with no relevant experience on a committee to address nuclear arms. “ISAB Board (board Raj wanted) now has an opening” (ID 4838 Clinton leak). It literally says “board Raj wanted.” Also, ABC, June 10, 2016, “How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board.” Uranium Scandal: Hillary and Bill Clinton and their foundation took money from Russian owned Canadian company and then allowed them to control much of US Uranium market, see New York Times, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal” April 23, 2015.

Billionaire with ties to Nigerian dictator donates to Clinton Foundation and receives access to policy makers pertaining to Lebanon, see Los Angeles Times, August 28, 2016, “He was a billionaire who donated to the Clinton Foundation. Last year, he was denied entry into the U.S.”

Hillary Clinton dramatically increased arms sales to the Middle East from the Bush Administration as secretary of state and donors to the Clinton Foundation got the majority of the weapons. Both defense contractors and foreign governments contributed and paid for speeches by Bill, see Mother Jones, May 28, 2015: “An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.”

A gold mining concession in Haiti went to a company where Hillary Clinton’s brother sat on the board of directors. Donor money disappeared from the Haitian rebuilding project. Promised elections were cancelled in Haiti, along with massive interference in the 2011 election that did occur. See the Daily Mail, March 16, 2015, “Hillary Clinton's brother landed lucrative gold-mining permit in Haiti after Bill Clinton helped country recover from earthquake devastation” and the New York Times “High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti” on March 14, 2016, and “Red Cross Built Exactly 6 Homes For Haiti With Nearly Half A Billion Dollars In Donations” in Huffington Post, June 30, 2016.

Published in the Guardian, “Trump and Clinton share Delaware tax 'loophole' address with 285,000 firms, 1209 North Orange Street in Wilmington is a nondescript two-story building yet is home to Apple, American Airlines, Walmart and presidential candidates.”

Shell companies may play a role in what happened to the 153 to 160 million they made between 2000 and 2016, since their net worth was only 60 million on their official disclosures for the election of 2016. How is it that they made so much but only so few assets on their financial disclosures? Did they spend the rest, about 5 million a year? Talk about a lavish lifestyle. John and Tony Podesta show up in the Panama papers, as in the Observer April 7, 2016, “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection.” Maybe the shell companies funnelled money to tax havens through lawyers like the firm revealed in the Panama papers.

Doug Band, Bill Clinton’s closest advisor, reports that Chelsea Clinton stole three million dollars for her wedding (see Wikileaks, search Doug Band. The Inquisitr said, “Hillary Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, allegedly used Clinton Foundation money and other charity resources to fund her wedding to Marc Mezvinsky. This was discovered through a new batch of WikiLeaks emails from top Bill Clinton aide, Doug Band. On January 4, 2012, Band wrote in an email that Chelsea used Foundation resources ‘for her wedding and life for a decade.’ He also alleged a top Foundation donor was responsible for “killing” unfavorable press coverage.”

If she didn’t steal the money, why did Doug Band say she did? He would have known. Shouldn’t the IRS look into whether or not she reported the money as income?

Hillary’s son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, like Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton, are almost twin couples. “Chelsea Clinton's Husband Closes His Hedge Fund” Bloomberg reported on February 8, 2017. Hillary loses and three months later, millions in “investments” get yanked from Mezvinsky. So, therefore, the investors in his hedge fund, Eaglevale, were not actually investing so much as buying influence with the next president.

This relationship could be as big a scandal as Michael Flynn talking to the Russians and having to resign from the Trump administration. We’re so inured to Clinton cheating and oligarchic control that it’s hum hum news… oh well, some more rich people who don’t mind sinking 50 million in a fake hedge fund to twist the government to their will... campaign contributions, speaking fees, donations to a foundation, investments in a hedge fund… so many ways for a Democrat to get rich by selling the working person out to the rich man, you can’t be surprised they refuse to resign, although they don’t deserve jobs mucking manure out of my barn. Too dumb to use a pitch fork. Too weak to finish the job. Too crooked to be trusted and you’d have to watch them the whole time so they don’t pinch the tools, slip some drill bits in their pockets if they find out where you keep your stuff. That’s Obama’s clean Democratic, all White party. It’s a fun party, if you’re invited.

Hillary’s campaign manager, Robby Mook: “it’s a little troubling” that meeting of Clinton Foundation was held at Goldman Sachs HQ: (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1381#efmAAwACA).

Anyone who thought the Clinton Foundation was a charity now can know, if they want to know, that it was a fraudulent con money laundering operation. If you look at the pattern and timing of speaking fees, there is no doubt that they were not speaking fees but bribes.

The Clinton Foundation has been a flop on the ground, helping almost no one. Please see Politico’s “There’s no country that more clearly illustrates the confusing nexus of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and Bill Clinton’s foundation than Haiti—America’s poorest neighbor” from May 4, 2015 for example.

Email ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46848 includes an attachment, an audit of the Clinton Foundation. This audit and the fact that the Clinton Global Initiative had to shut its doors and close up immediately after Hillary lost prove that Hillary rose to dominate the Democratic party and establishment politics in general by throwing money around. She operated a slush fund and was no better than a gangster.

You can see it all there in black and white in the audit. They spent 255 million in one year, but only 18 million of it on programs. In fact, they spent about as much on parties and other get togethers called “trainings” as on charity (18 for charity 14+ 3 for parties). Those are millions.

18 million for charity, and 16 million for “other.” Want to read that again? “Other” is more important than actually trying to help?

Consulting, $9 million. Yes, Doug Band got most of it, to cover his uncharged expenses at Teneo for setting up speeches for Bill. So that’s mostly what that is about.

Page 28 of the audit: Significant deficiency(ies)? Yes Material weakness(es)? Yes

Page 27: This report is intended solely for the information and use of the governing body, management, others within the Foundation, federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Whoops!

UNITAID got 108 million. UNITAID is an AIDs related UN program. This might be charity work, except that UNITAID gave the money right back to the Clintons, as reported by Ken Silverstein on October 26, 2015 and Jerome Corsi on April 23, 2105. “To be fairly precise, UNITAID alone reported donations to the Clinton Foundation of about $341.5 million during that period while the Clinton Foundation claims it spent about $215.4 million” we read in Byline. That $215.4 figure for the Clinton Foundation to UNITAID is in line with the audit noted here, over 2011 and 2012.

To make the big drug companies happy, the Clinton Foundation worked to keep the price of AIDS drugs high in Africa (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36248). In the April 14, 2016 Counterpunch article, “Tough Questions About Haiti for Hillary Clinton” and in ID emailid/ https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25770#efmADXAFGAHrAJq, we see the Clintons looking at the Haitian earthquake as a business opportunity.

Back to the audit: “However, as discussed in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses and other deficiencies that we consider to be significant deficiencies… A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis….We consider the deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses as item 11- 01 to be a material weakness… We consider the deficiencies described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses as items 11–02 and 11–03 to be significant deficiencies.”

The other important document on the foundation we get from Wikileaks is the famous Teneo/Band Clinton Inc. memo (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2874). This is where we hear that Chelsea Clinton helped herself to three million dollars for her wedding, clearly tax fraud if true. The practice of getting rich off of disasters is at the heart of Clinton practices.

When Hillary was a senator, the Clinton Foundation limped along with an endowment of a couple of million and Bill was getting about $150,000 for a speech. When she became secretary of state, Bill’s speaking fees tripled and the Foundation raised close to 3 billion dollars, according to the Atlantic “A Quick Guide to the Questions About Clinton Cash” from April 23, 2015.

After 2008, Hillary’s campaign manager Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the head of the DNC. In any sane world, Wasserman Schultz would have stepped down from her DNC position for the duration of the primary. Even if she was a saint, and she is far from that, there's no way you can go from being someone's campaign manager to being "neutral and impartial" about their next campaign.

Hillary was set to be the heir apparent to the presidency. Democrats had won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential races, with 2004 being a post 9–11 exception. With Hillary as the next president and the current secretary of state, Clinton Inc. seemed like a very good bet. You can get favors now, and get access later. It looked like a good deal to Google, UBS bank, the government of Kuwait, Dow Chemical, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and everyone else.

Doug Band is exceedingly clear that the donors (like Saudi Arabia) do not care about women’s health in Niger. But the Clinton Foundation did almost no charity anyway, and the donors knew that too. The only one on the inside who didn’t know was Chelsea Clinton, and so we got this audit. They didn’t just use the slush fund to buy support. They also skimmed off plenty for themselves, from the speeches, from the Foundation.

In speech income, there is potential tax fraud liability. Speeches were personal income sometimes, and Foundation income at other times. Because personal income is theoretically taxable, while charitable contributions are not, Clinton can't simply make a call willy-nilly on each speech. In other words, the nature of the income should be definitional, not a decision made by the recipient. Anyone else would worry about these issues and be more careful than were the Clintons.

And then she lost. And all the money dried up right away. The Clinton Initiative closed in late 2016. Unbelievable corruption, and completely obvious. The New York Times, still working for John Podesta, in “Soul-Searching at Clinton Foundation in Trump Era” makes the laughable claim that the steep drop in donations following the loss in November, from millions per week to almost zero immediately after the election, is an indicator of “the energy, passion, desire and the good health” of Bill Clinton, as if his health and energy dramatically changed between November 8th and November 9th.

The transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs was a major issue in the Democratic primary. We finally got the transcripts in October 2016 from Wikileaks.

In the speeches we hear Hillary Clinton speaking in private to rich bankers. It’s quite important to pay attention to the releases from Wikileaks in 2016 because we may never have a better look behind the scenes of how corruption works.

The comment about her “public and private positions” got the most attention, and well it should. In fact, “we have a public and a private position” could well be the motto of both the Democratic and Republican parties. This is another key passage, from the Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, October 29, 2013:

HILLARY: I want to get back to having a two-party system that can have an adult conversation and a real debate about the future.

MR. BLANKFEIN (CEO of Goldman Sachs): Yeah, and one thing, I’m glad — I’m proud that the financial services industry has been the one unifying theme that binds everybody together in common. (Laughter.)”

This exchange is similar to an exchange at Xerox, March 18, 2014:

URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.

For Clinton, and her donors, we should have two basically similar parties and a fake debate limited to a narrow range of topics, as we have had in the past.

Or consider Wikileak ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23756, on the 2014 Princeton Study “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” The Podesta team says, “I guess it takes a study to point out the obvious.” And, my friends, there you have it. Right from the horse’s mouth. If there were any doubt about the conclusion of the 2014 Princeton Study, those doubts have been obliterated by John Podesta. If his team says it’s obvious that the US is not a democracy, and they should know, then it’s true.

Don’t believe politicians when they spin. Don’t believe the MSM. Believe what they say behind closed doors to bankers and among themselves in their private emails. What they say is that the bankers run the government, that we do not live in a democracy, and that every word they say to us in speeches is a lie. Believe them. They just told you the truth (in private).

I could cite more examples of this kind of admission when they thought no one was listening but these few examples should suffice. The cat is out of the bag. No more discussion needed. America is not a democracy or a truly representative republic: the people who keep it that way know it and know why it is undemocratic and freely acknowledge the fact in private.

We all should simply stop referring to America as a democracy or representative republic, as we have definitive proof that the system does not work for the working people but does work well for a small group of connected oligarchs. Just wipe the phrase “American democracy” from your vocabulary the way we stopped saying “police man” and now say “police officer” or stop referring to African Americans as did Martin Luther King, “negro,” and use the terms “Black” or “African American.” Fix the language to reflect reality. Never say we live in a democracy as a short hand. We don’t.

Negative comments about the Clintons from insiders and friends

There are many books that contribute hundreds of quotes from people who know the Clinton’s well and hate them, including Clinton Inc.

The Telegraph published a prophetic article back in November 22, 2008: “Barack Obama's aides believe he has made a mistake in hiring Hillary Clinton.” The article says:

"They can't help themselves," the Obama aide told his friend, a fellow Democrat strategist. "Every event is a potential ladder up or a bullet to be dodged. They're positioning and spinning all the time. They lost. Now we seem to be handing them the farm."

Most shocking to Mr Obama's team is the loss of discipline and control that they have experienced since coming to Washington.

The President-elect's campaign was tightly controlled, with very few uncoordinated leaks. The candidate was known as "No Drama Obama." David Corn, Washington Bureau Chief of the left of centre magazine Mother Jones, summed up the problem: "The presidential transition of no-drama Obama became infected by the never-ending soap opera of the Clintons. And it really is time to turn that programme off."

The Washington Post columnist and Clinton sceptic, David Ignatius, added: "The idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton, a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that's hungrier and needier still, strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions." It is a view that many around the President-elect now share.

In ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/35921, consummate Hillary insider Neera Tanden, who has known Hillary well for years, said “sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement.” She also said, “Brock/Bonner Are a nightmare: Really, Suzie Buell isn't giving to the super pac? I wonder how that got in this story.” Tanden expresses concern that the Correct The Record superpac is pushing its legal boundaries and may be colluding directly with the campaign (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10068#efmAAGAA4AEFAFn): “this does seem shady.” Tanden further notes, “She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable” (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/17343#efmAFHAHJARzATdAeFAfj).

Clinton campaign scrambled to escape "calls for transparency" on Hillary's health and taxes. Campaign manager Robby Mook said to chairman John Podesta, Hillary's health and taxes are "hyper sensitive topics" (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11563#efmAAqAEB). Clinton campaign insiders feared Bill’s sex life could sink Hillary. Podesta says they should “shut the hell up about this” (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2301#efmAPjARK).

Top Clinton aide Doug Band details how Clinton Foundation Chief Laura Graham nearly committed suicide by plunging her car into ocean depths because of treatment from Bill & Chelsea Clinton. Staffers write each other about how Chelsea wouldn’t care if she died (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3332#efmAdAAmB).

A journalist we will meet again, Brent Budowsky, the webtv email address guy, a man who regularly emailed Podesta wise ideas, pointed out major concerns over Hillary’s shady financing. It can “bring down a Hillary Clinton candidacy” (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6900#efmAAGAD3ALmASb). However, Podesta never seems to write back to Budowsky. Brent never published his concerns in the Hill or the Huffington Post. Budowsky warned Podesta to "be very very careful" of the "intense antipathy" being created by Team Hillary.

"Many Bernie supporters and younger women will not vote for her in November…. The daughter of a Democrat who has worked for senior Democrats told me ‘I just hate her so much I might even vote for a Republican but I will never vote for her.’” (ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11580#efmAAGAPF).

DNC ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23855 is a compendium of quotes from newspapers that endorsed Hillary in 2016 sent by DNC staffer L. Hendricks.

One year after announcing, her endorsers have called her "polarizing," "fiercely disliked," "extreme flip-flopping," "a taste for expediency," "has a trust deficit," "way too secretive," "almost paranoid," "a tone-deaf approach," "hardly lovable and certainly flawed," "plays fast and loose with the truth," and "a politician with so much baggage that even Southwest Airlines would start charging fees," are just some of the attributes highlighted by Clinton's "endorsers." The most persistent problem identified was Clinton's use of a secret server that has sparked an FBI investigation, with The Free Lance-Star editorial board declaring that "it's anyone's guess when the probe will end and whether there will be an indictment." The Detroit News led the charge in questioning Clinton's trustworthiness saying that "even a disingenuous capitalist is preferable to a genuine socialist," as the Minneapolis Star Tribune cited a "disturbingly high level of mistrust" of Clinton. The Des Moines Register highlighted her shifting positions noting that "her changing stance on gay marriage, immigration and other issues has invited accusations that she is guided less by personal conviction than by political calculations." These half-hearted "endorsements" typify Clinton's problems with trust, ethics and character that have dogged her throughout this campaign, and led to legions' of Democrats grudging, unenthusiastic support.

These are her friends.

In ID https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9637 a lawyer tells John Podesta, “The one thing I heard in her super Tuesday speech that I thought that I would avoid is that she said: “whether we like it or not, we are in this all together…” I would advise eliminating the “like it or not” part and just say that “in order to make America whole we must be in this altogether.” That’s funny. Hillary clearly wishes she could be president without having to pretend like she wants to be together with us regular folk. Her staff has to stop her from saying, you know, that we’re deporables or basement-dwellers… oh wait, she did call us that.

Can anyone who has read the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs doubt that Hillary hates working people and loves rich bankers?