|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Ps |
|||||||||||||||
|
Protecting HRC Your claims are groundless. We all know nothing of the sort. Oh, there is lots of fulminating on con airwaves, Hannity, Limbaugh, Jones, and company spinning for all they are worth. Thank God O'Reilly is out. But there is zero evidence of "pay for play," only unfounded allegation. IF she did that she should go to prison. Even now, despite losing the election. That would have been grossly improper. But again--this has been investigated by the very best people the Republicans could assemble--and has come to naught. Kenneth Starr could sniff out a dress stain, why can't Republican investigators dig up dirt on Hillary? My guess is that if they could squeeze blood out of a turnip, they would have tossed Hillary in jail. "Lock her up! Lock her up!" Instead we see Flynn facing prison. The chant leader. LOL! No one should be above the law. I don't care what their party is--if they have engaged in criminal activity they should suffer the consequences for that. But before I swallow the key to Hillary's cell, I need something better than pie-in-the-sky accusations. "Oh, she MUST have taken money from her charity--cause 😿 does it. Well no, Hillary isn't 😿. Not even close. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer's Point Bill DID address income inequality a little bit, which leads me to believe he's not the Wall Street power broker Apatzer alleges, though to be fair Clinton did enjoy Wall Street's reluctant blessing. Hillary--not nearly so much. For the most part Goldman Sachs prefers conservatives--who are adamant about stripping away useless environmental protections that keep TCE out of my drinking water. Yeah. My drinking water is polluted now. Conservatives gung ho on income inequality--redistribution of wealth upwards into the hands of those who know the value of a dollar, instead of some nasty poor person's greasy fingers who will just soil the bill or waste on on food for their hungry children. Bah! |
|||||||||||||||
|
Obama and HRC's collusion with Russia. It is time for Mueller to look into Clinton's Uranium one deal. Russia can use the uranium or US technology to make nuclear bombs or give away to Iran. This is a great security threat to our nation. After the deal, Clinton foundation received $ 145 million donation. The deal could not go thru without the approval of HRC who was secretary of state at that time. Mueller should investigate whether the deal was made according to the law of the land. Since she was using the private server at that time, she might cover herself of corruption by destroying all the emails related to this uranium deal so that nobody can trace her wrongdoings. Nevertheless, FBI investigators can piece together the evidence available from other sources and should make known to the public. |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 28-Jan-18, 19:26 |
There is no direct evidence of illegal pay to play. It’s clear as I have pointed out the State Dept had a terrible IT and email system. I think she was too insulated and was careless and naive about the problems with her solution. It’s hard to take anything Softaire says seriously anymore because he excuses right wing corruption and ethics issues. At least Apatzer can criticize both sides. |
|||||||||||||||
|
LS Also Goldman sacs did give Chelsea and her husband thier very own hedge fund. They like to groom the up in comming. Goldman Sachs is the head of the federal reserve and have been deeply entrenched in our government since 1921. And the way you describe thier thoughts is accurate but, to the point. They would say poor people throw thier money away. Gambling the lottery useless things. And they see us as being greedy just like they are only we lack power and education. To be honest I could see that point. However that is a very cold and calculating way too look at it. But then again they are not trying to educate the poor on how to better use the tool of money either. In fact they purposely keep them ignorant. That way thier get rich quick scheams and pay day loans etc etc will still be a good way earning them big money. And they are right the public falls for it. Mass credit card debt Mortgages they were talked into that are far beyond thier means. And it goes on and on. In fact we are programmed to keep up with the Jones. They use ever psychological trick in the book. But the way I see it. If you are fishing is it the fishes fault it did not see the hook? No. Fish like worms and they work well but not for all fish. Some you have to use a fly rod to catch. They have a lure for every occasion. Financial predation is a plague. Students are prayed upon. Then they have the full to outright defraud thier customers. The love of money is the root of all evil. For the poor and the rich alike. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Uranium One <<It is time for Mueller to look into Clinton's Uranium one deal.>> Mueller already has a job. If someone needs to dig into this one again then someone else should do it. It's already been beaten to death. There is nothing there, Ace. Russia doesn't get the Uranium--never did. That is conservative talk radio nonsense--Alex Jones style. I don't think even Fox still insists Russia was ever going to end up with the ore. Back in reality, all it did was give a Russian consortium financial interest in a CANADIAN mining company. The ore was never going to leave the Americas. At least not to Russia. Furthermore, what donations folks connected with Uranium One made to the Clinton Foundation they did YEARS before Hillary became Secretary of State. She was a senator at the time--no one predicted Obama would offer her that position. Also, she was one of more than a dozen people who signed off on the deal. She only signed what others explained appeared to be perfectly legitimate. If they could think of a reason to block it, they would have. It is NOTHING like when George W. Bush sought to give US port security over to a private company based in the United Arab Emirates, not long after 9/11. I almost wish there WAS something here, so we could throw Hillary into prison over it and move on. I grow so weary hearing about Bill Clinton's blowjob and Hillary murdering Benghazi soldiers and receiving email on a private server as though there was some kind of actual conspiracy here. There is a conspiracy, and it involves 😿 colluding with the Russians to overturn US elections. The evidence is compelling and abundant. Fancy Bear hacked both DNC and RNC mail servers (though no evidence exists they ever breeched Hillary's secure private server), and released the DNC email to Wikileaks which published the material coincident with Donald Jr. announcing they were about to dump. How did he know? How did 😿 tweet about it mere minutes before it happened? We have guilty pleas from 😿 campaign staff, perjuring themselves about dealing with Russians. What are they trying to cover up? There is real evidence, Ace, not this crazy Uranium deep-state conspiracy silliness. Besides, it is a separate issue. If Hillary DID do anything like that--she should be tried for treason--same as 😿. But evidence first, guilty pleas and sentences afterwards. So far my conservative friends have been so eager to "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" And they've nothing to justify that. Except that they don't like pant suits. |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro To my knowlege the Carter foundation does not operate that way. Nor does any other non profit organization that I can think of. Here is one below not sure how credible the source is. nypost.com Just something to think about. Circumstantial evidence that piles up is more often enough in a court for some cases. Of course I could be wrong but something just doesn't seem right. Also while I'm at it. Trump makes almost every product over seas. Defrauded contractor after contractor. Files Bankrupsy to avoid repaying debt. Was not faithful to his wife. And yet the little man. The very people he steals from. Think that he is going to help them? That is preposterous. If you look into Trumps family background His father was pulled before Congress for embezzling federal money given to him by Eisenhower to build homes after WW2. He kept well over 12 million of those funds for himself. In fact the Trumps have taken every government handout and have taken advantage of every left wing iniative... policy etc. That is how his family made the real money. Just more corporate welfare. But the right doesn't talk about that much do they? So what does he do wirh his tax plan? Yes that's right. However I do agree that the inheritance tax needed to be adjusted. Because if someone leaves you land the only way you could pay the tax is if you sold it. That isn't right either. Well I've rambled enough. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The Love of Money Amen to that! The poor's love of money leads them to vote red, against their own best interest. I know that sounds political but truly, the parties are NOT equal. While both do have their faults, I am convinced (as is BC) that one is clearly better in terms of defending the interests of the common man. I don't know who Medvinski's financial backers were. You claim they were Goldman Sachs. I don't know that. I DO know he closed out the fund and returned the money. This was after Hillary lost, so apparently he thought odds he could make money off her coat tails dimmed substantially with her loss. That speaks volumes about a lack of personal integrity and so on. Cashing in on his political connections. It stinks. But if the Clintons were as connected as you say, it wouldn't matter that she lost--he would have continued with the fund. As Chelsea's husband, you can also say she was involved. Sometimes spouses do things without consulting their partner. Do you think 😿 consults Melania on every business decision he makes? On ANY business decision? Despite the fact she is by far the smarter of the pair of them, I seriously doubt it. www.dailymail.co.uk |
|||||||||||||||
|
Estate Taxes This isn't entirely true either. First off, family farm property was exempt from estate taxes. So the Republican hue and cry about saving family farms by eliminating the "death tax" was balderdash from beginning to end. Second, the first five million in inheritance was exempt. (Now ALL of it is). So if you inherit ten million in property, the tax was what, 20%? You would have to sell 20% of five million worth of real estate to cover the tax. If you sold the whole five million, you got to pocket $4 million and keep the other $5 million without tax liability. Well, we all understand the greed that grips the soul, the avarice that demands the entire $10 million be unencumbered, that $9 million is such a far cry from $10 who could stand to let that last million slip through their avarice riddled fingers? |
|||||||||||||||
|
To be honest all of Washington is like that. So it is not just the Clinton's.. to be fair. |
|||||||||||||||
|
It's been 10-years since i subscribed to gameknot Our Democracy is dying. Stop and think.Shake off this Paralysis before it is too late. Open your Goddamn eyes. Stop acting like very stupid Australopithecus Afarensis. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 28-Jan-18, 20:16 |
www.politifact.com It’s always risky when you skirt the edge between being technically legal but with conflicts of interest. The Clintons are lawyers who look for loopholes and technicalities over ethical conflicts. I oppose singling them out for political vendettas. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 28-Jan-18, 20:27 |
Apatzer How many times do I have to say this? The LAW (18 US Code §793) quotes "intent" in several clauses, so it was very appropriate to exclude that. "Intent" played no other factor as far as I can see. Comey then proceeded to discuss the clauses that do not require "intent". When you say Americans have been prosecuted for "far less", you make a judgement that obviously differs from the judgement by Comey and the FBI, who - after all - made the investigation and have seen all the evidence. Then, based on YOUR judgement, you build this conspiration theory (about which this thread revolves) about the FBI and "Deep State" and whatever. They are all geared against you - or the American public? Wheeeev! Now, let me ask you an honest question: Would you like to put Mrs. Clinton in prison for the e-mail scandal? |
|||||||||||||||
|
However i would Like is she (as all of us) Would be Handled according to the law and If found guilty. To have the appropriate sentence imposed. The portions you read were not a requirement of intent, It stated that if it was done with intent you could never hold office again. That is why Intent was quoted so much. Trust me she will win in 2020. This deep sate and election integrity stuff is subterfuge and put fourth as a distraction. a poor body double. The deep state is not geared against us no more so than A farmer is geared against his crop. You pull the weeds and if some of your crop dies no biggie. As long as we keep producing like a good little crop, we will be ok. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 29-Jan-18, 05:43 |
apatzer I suggest you read the law again. After clauses/conditions a-f, it says: www.law.cornell.edu ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both <<Would you like to put Mrs. Clinton in prison for the e-mail scandal?>> <A serious Answer. No not for the email scandal.> Well, then you are of the same OPINION as FBI/Comey. |
|||||||||||||||
|
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivere F)(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten year A describes various types of violations and then it say.. (Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent) With like intent as to the above. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Intent = Witch Hunt to impeach Trump All hell is breaking loose on democrats in Capitol Hill. FBI Deputy Director McCabe will be stepping down. He appears to be a mole for Democrats. There is a 4 page FBI secret memo on how surveillance was started on Trump. 5 months FBI records were missing. Nevertheless, the question is, who authorized FBI to wiretap Trump tower and what's the role played by Fusion GPS to collect Trump's Dossier ? Fusion GPS is not a government agency and FBI cannot share the classified information with them for further investigation. GOP legislators want to declassify and make public. Democrats block it, citing national security. The public has the right to know so that Mueller's sham unnecessary witch hunt investigation on Trump can be stopped. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Ok She had information, contained in electronic documents. Writing. I doubt the messages pertained much to "national defense," we must remember that during the Bush administration the white house GUEST list was classified "top secret." We we do not know the content of the EIGHT (8) messages of the 30,000 examined by the FBI which had been classified (or reclassified) with the highest security rating. Did she through "gross negligence" permit any messages to be removed or delivered to anyone not authorized to see this content? Apparently not. They were on a secure server she had instructed be backed up locally--NOT via the cloud--though this instruction was violated by the security firm she hired to set up the private email. Her use of private email was far more secure than that of her predecessors, I would like to add. Was it wrong that she did this? Yes. She also admitted as much. Assuming State was doing its job preserving copies of messages sent to her (and she would have received no classified information from any but State servers), no message wold have been lost. Were any stolen, abstracted, or destroyed? It is common practice to destroy storage devices to be retired. My company physically destroys hard drives of the computers used by its officers. I view this as a sad waste because some of those drives could easily be given low level formats rendering the data irretrievable to any but the most sophisticated attacks--NSA retrieval tech. At a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars in man hour labor, the effort expended would exceed the value of the data recovered. In her case the data could have been much more valuable than that--we don't know. She did what her predecessors had done, except far more securely (Colin Powell used a public email address, for Christ's sake). When she started doing it in January 2009 it was permissible. The code was updated in October, 10 months later, to recommend against permitting email outside .gov addresses to be used for this purpose. The link is really sucking for me, but the Benghazi hearings in 2015 culminated in the complaints over Hillary's email use, and I think it was 2009/2010 when she quit using it. She was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. It was at least two years, possibly 3 that she had not used the address for State affairs. www.forbes.com So what exactly did she do wrong, beyond what she has already admitted was a poor decision? How have conservatives blown Hillary's email up into such a mountain they overshadow DG's collusion with Putin and his obstruction of justice? |
|||||||||||||||
|
DG Tower DG's conversations with Russians were eavesdropped upon--because George W. Bush implemented a program whereby we listened in on ALL conversations folks had with Russians, and Snowden revealed Obama continued the policy. No real surprise here, beyond DG's propensity to lie for trivial purposes, which is why I am so anxious to have him testify under oath. The first complete sentence he manages to utter will be perjury. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Comey's statement was not true. |
|||||||||||||||
|
LS What she did... Her Title of Secretary of State. You nor I do not know what she had or did not have on her server. But as the boss I would say she had quite a lot. She was the boss. 1. Her server was set up in an unused bathroom. She had declined to use the Government's servers. 2 that server was not secure. 3. That server was hacked. 4. Her documents were found in devices owned by Huma Abidine and Anthony Weiner. 5. The private agenda that set up the server. Service and maintained it. Was not authorised to do so. 6. That information was backed up to the cloud by yet another un approved company. 7 her lawyers transported that information via flash drives. So it was copied God knows how many times. 8. She instructed her 3 lawyers. To destroy the documents she had. 9. She instructed her tech guy. To scrub the server. But I'm sure the secretary of state would not have a treasure trove of useful information that could be used by a forienge government. It's a good thing too because the entirr world now has those documents. Russia... China... There were documents pertaining to the planed elimination of Quadafi Remember her saying... We came we saw he died and then laughed like a school girl. And that's for starters. General Petraeus did far less and was treated far worse. The law does not apply to some people. And that's the way it always has been. I don't think Trump will see the inside of a jail cell either |
|||||||||||||||
|
LS That tens of thousands of a very high ranking government official. The secretary of state no less. Wiki leaks has them and has released a portion. Thanks to Gucifer Russia and God only knows who else has them. And Gucifer was an average hacker. Not a nation state. The capability of a nation state. To be intucive aka hack. Is light years beyond the average hacker. And yes the us does set up honey pots wirh diss information. It is a cat and mouse 3 d chess game. Her server was legit. It had real intelligence information on it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Inaccurate The private company that set it up begs to differ. platteriver.com 3. That server was hacked. There has never been any evidence of that. "In 2013, hacker Guccifer claimed to have accessed Clinton's personal email account and released emails that were allegedly related to the Benghazi attack." The claim has never been substantiated. In fact, Guccifer hacked someone else's account, and released emails from Hillary to them--none of which had been classified at the time Hillary sent them. www.usatoday.com 4. Her documents were found in devices owned by Huma Abidine and Anthony Weiner. Huma worked for Hillary, and the only documents she had were those Hillary had sent her. Now it turns out Anthony Weiner had one of Huma's old PCs--one which had NOT had its hard drive properly dismantled and destroyed--from which he sent prurient communications to a cop posing as an underaged female. All of this is secondary stuff--no evidence of any classified material picked up by others. The Secretary of State communicates with a lot of people--unless they are Rex Tillerson and then the only communication they engage in is calling DG a "F*ing Moron." Which is certainly accurate. But suppose Guccifer overheard Rex say that, and released it. That would put the communication on par with those "intercepted" from Hillary. It is not a top secret classified state information that DG is a "F*ing Moron." That is internationally exposed pretty much every time he speaks. Petraeus did NOT do far less. He was sharing secrets with a woman with whom he was carrying on an affair. Hillary did not have illicit relations with her secretary, or with an adult porn star, or a Playboy bunny, or anyone else. Again--I'm not defending Hillary for what she did--just pointing out the plain, unvarnished facts. If you were a judge hearing this evidence, what would be your verdict? Most reasonable officers (Comey included) regarded the matter as important--she had been careless--but not to the extent of any criminal negligence. The rest of his staff concurred with that assessment. No one who worked the case thought there was evidence of wrong doing sufficient to merit charges, and any reasonable judge would likely toss the case as unworthy of prosecution. "Did my client jaywalk? Well, your honor, it was a rural country road, no side walks, no traffic, and in broad daylight. No intersections either direction for more than a mile. My client did cross the road, rescuing a small child who had fallen into a drainage ditch on the other side." "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" OFF WITH HER HEAD! The red queen shouted. |
|||||||||||||||
|
No politician will ever go to jail Even if he was fined, he would find a one million dollar fine very amusing, like a drop in a bucket. Nixon was pardoned by Ford, and he did not have to ask permission or consult anyone to do that, so presidents will never go to jail, they are immune. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Traitors, conspirators and criminals will be exposed soon. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Trump will pardon them like Jesus. |
|||||||||||||||
|
ace Well: You fully exposed your bias with that comment! |
|||||||||||||||
|
Jan |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
