More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton

[TheSanityAnnex]

But if they themselves said it was an out of context article, how can it be factual when key infomartion was left out. Did you even read my link?

They admitted to leaving key infomartion out. So yes, it does nnullify the article because it was half baked.

But, the damage is done. People already think what they think so meh.

LOL Speaking of leavings things out and taking things out of context.....next time don't leave out two important paragraphs and present them as the article. You literally just did what the tweet did. Here is what was smack dab in the middle of the quote you edited.





"The story in question detailed how, among the individuals Clinton met with at the State Department who were outside of government, "an extraordinary proportion" had donated to her family's foundation personally or by way of some other en y — a finding, the AP wrote, that indicated "her possible ethics challenges if elected president."Specifically, the AP review found that 85 of the 154 people who'd had in-person or phone meetings scheduled with Clinton and who weren't government officials were also foundation contributors, according to the State Department calendars that were available."



Are you going to apologize like the AP for deliberately presenting misleading information?

[TheSanityAnnex]

They also said, they pulled it because it was out of context and not up to snuff.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...weet/90089520/

Admit it. Hillary wins this round.

Quote in full deceiver.

In a memo explaining the decision, John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context.

The story in question detailed how, among the individuals Clinton met with at the State Department who were outside of government, "an extraordinary proportion" had donated to her family's foundation personally or by way of some other en y — a finding, the AP wrote, that indicated "her possible ethics challenges if elected president."

Specifically, the AP review found that 85 of the 154 people who'd had in-person or phone meetings scheduled with Clinton and who weren't government officials were also foundation contributors, according to the State Department calendars that were available.
However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."
In other words, the now-deleted tweet gave the impression that a far higher percentage of Clinton's total meetings while secretary were with donors than was concluded by the story's analysis, given that the 154 people included in the review did not encompass the many government officials she was interacting with during her tenure, meetings that Daniszewski wrote "made up the bulk of her workday."

[Reck]

Damn why are you melting down over this?

The reason why the tweet was deleted was because the article itself lacked the proper and full scope of the story. The tweet wasn't just deleted and the story stayed the same. They added full context which was lacking the first time around.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Damn why are you melting down over this?

The reason why the tweet was deleted was because the article itself lacked the proper and full scope of the story. The tweet wasn't just deleted and the story stayed the same. They added full context which was lacking the first time around.

Pointing out your deceitfulness is not a meltdown. You purposely took out two paragraphs and edited the quote.

And no the article itself did not lack the proper and full scope of the story...the tweet did, which is why it was deleted. Your own article explains exactly that. From your linked article

"John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."


"However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."


If you still don't believe me take a look at my first post in this thread which is the actual article which always contained the full context. The article was copied and pasted in the OP.




I posted the article in the OP.

[Reck]

Pointing out your deceitfulness is not a meltdown. You purposely took out two paragraphs and edited the quote.

And no the article itself did not lack the proper and full scope of the story...the tweet did, which is why it was deleted. Your own article explains exactly that. From your linked article

"John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."


"However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."


If you still don't believe me take a look at my first post in this thread which is the actual article which always contained the full context. The article was copied and pasted in the OP.




I posted the article in the OP.

LOL purporfully? I highlighted the paragraphs that were relevant. And it proved the point I was making.

I get you never want to admit you're wrong. You have this idea you always have to have the last word and be right. What does it say the guy in charge at the AP came out, called for the tweet to be taken down and explained why he did it. Apparently, that's not enough for you. LOL

[TheSanityAnnex]

LOL purporfully? I highlighted the paragraphs that were relevant. And it proved the point I was making.

I get you never want to admit you're wrong. You have this idea you always have to have the last word and be right. What does it say the guy in charge at the AP came out, called for the tweet to be taken down and explained why he did it. Apparently, that's not enough for you. LOL

I am not wrong here, that would be you. You even linked an article to prove yourself wrong, and even bolded the paragraphs proving you wrong

The AP said the tweet lacked the context that the article contained. The tweet was deleted, the article was not.

The tweet didn't mention the distinction the article did. Quote from article in question below.

"Based on the records released so far, the AP found that more than half the people outside the government who met or spoke by telephone with Clinton during her tenure as a Cabinet secretary had given money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. The AP's analysis focused on people with private interests and excluded her meetings or calls with U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives."


This isn't even debatable. You are just going full re now.

[Reck]

I am not wrong here, that would be you. You even linked an article to prove yourself wrong, and even bolded the paragraphs proving you wrong

The AP said the tweet lacked the context that the article contained. The tweet was deleted, the article was not.

The tweet didn't mention the distinction the article did. Quote from article in question below.

"Based on the records released so far, the AP found that more than half the people outside the government who met or spoke by telephone with Clinton during her tenure as a Cabinet secretary had given money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. The AP's analysis focused on people with private interests and excluded her meetings or calls with U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives."


This isn't even debatable. You are just going full re now.

Wow you definitely lack common sense.

All my posts highlight where the vice president of the AP himself is saying the "felt short" by omitting essential context and misleading.

It goes to my point which is why it is bolded.

The fact that you're a moron is not my problem. It's ABC stuff.

Wording a tweet that changes the narrative of your article is malpractice which is what happened here and the reason why the tweet was deleted and they had to explain themselves.

What is not debatable is that they left out the other hundreds of people she met with which was part of her job as secretary of state.

Another little nugget:

“Unpacking how we fell short of our own standards is a painful process, but a necessary one. The new guidelines are stronger as a result,” said AP executive director Kathleen Carroll.

Bahahahahahhahahahhahahahhaha

[TheSanityAnnex]

Wow you definitely lack common sense.

All my posts highlight where the vice president of the AP himself is saying the "felt short" by omitting essential context and misleading.

It goes to my point which is why it is bolded.

The fact that you're a moron is not my problem. It's ABC stuff.

Wording a tweet that changes the narrative of your article is malpractice which is what happened here and the reason why the tweet was deleted and they had to explain themselves.

You are back tracking from your original argumenr from this very same page just a few posts before. For a refresher here is your claim.

The reason why the tweet was deleted was because the article itself lacked the proper and full scope of the story.

The tweet was misleading, not the article.

What is not debatable is that they left out the other hundreds of people she met with which was part of her job as secretary of state.

What is up for debate? The AP explained explicitly why these people were left out.

"Based on the records released so far, the AP found that more than half the people outside the government who met or spoke by telephone with Clinton during her tenure as a Cabinet secretary had given money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. The AP's analysis focused on people with private interests and excluded her meetings or calls with U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives.


This was all shown to you on page ing 1 and you are still asking the same stupid questions. I'm to the point now that I'm thinking this must be a troll job, no one can really be this dumb.

[Reck]

breaking down further.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Have a nice weekend Reck, find a way to get smarter maybe read a book or two.

[Reck]

Have a nice weekend Reck, find a way to get smarter maybe read a book or two.

Nooo dont go. Please make another 1000 word break down post.

[boutons_deux]

Newsweek: The Trump Organization...MSM Starting To Do Its Job?

After months and months of MSM and Trump talking about the secret evil things the Clinton family and Clinton Foundation did, today Newsweek has a detailed article about dealing of The Trump Organization and its dealings around the world .

Throughout this campaign, the Trump Organization, which pumps potentially hundreds of millions of dollars into the Trump family’s bank accounts each year, has been largely ignored. As a private enterprise, its businesses, partners and investors are hidden from public view, even though they are the very people who could be enriched by—or will further enrich—Trump and his family if he wins the presidency.

Haven't we heard the same “innuendo” regarding Hillary Clinton and the Foundation? But nothing to back it up with facts. Let's see if there is a there there

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea foundation:

• Accused of “pay for play”-debunked as there was no “pay” , as contributions were publicly disclosed ANd went to charities.
• International independent auditing company PricewaterhouseCoopers plus the foundation taxes show that around 90% of the contributions goes to Charity
• no member of the Clinton family has received money
• the foundation did not donate to any campaign
• The Clintons and almost the board work for free

Now the Trump Organization

On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year.

Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities.

None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners.

(The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign en ies in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.)

Trump’s financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas en ies, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world’s tax havens.

Does this affect aTrump presidency? Well the tentacles of the organization spread worldwide and it's more then just the different relationship with governments around the world that even if he released his taxes, would not be revealed

The problem of overseas conflicts emerges from the nature of Trump’s business in recent years.

Much of the public believes Trump is a hugely successful developer, a television personality and a failed casino operator.

But his primary business deals for almost a decade have been a quite different endeavor.

The GOP nominee is essentially a licensor who leverages his celebrity into streams of cash from partners from all over the world.

The business model for Trump’s company started to change around 2007, after he became the star of NBC’s The Apprentice, which boosted his national and international fame.

Rather than constructing Trump’s own hotels, office towers and other buildings, much of his business involved striking deals with overseas developers who pay his company for the right to slap his name on their buildings.

(The last building constructed by Trump with his name on it is the Trump-SoHo hotel and condominium project, completed in 2007.)

Now why would somebody want to put Trump on their building or product… Is beyond me.

in the late 90s he began a licensing venture worth South Korean company Daewoo , that company filed for bankruptcy( with a fraud claim proven right ) , CEO fled to North Korea the returned to be tried and jailed.

Trump has said the South Korea should be more independent on military spending and build nuclear arsenal.

Guess who would benefit if US made a policy change with regards to military spending in South Korea…. Yup Daewoo Engeneering and Construction that has a nuclear energy arm.

India has several ties , one example

Last month, scandal erupted over the development, called Trump Towers Pune, after the state government and local police started looking into discrepancies in the land records suggesting that the land on which the building was constructed may not have been legally obtained by Panchshil.

The Indian company says no rules or laws were broken, but if government officials conclude otherwise, the project’s future will be in jeopardy—and create a problem that Indian politicians eager to please an American president might have to resolve.

Through the Pune deal, the Trump Organization has developed close ties to India’s Nationalist Congress Party—a centrist political organization that stands for democratic secularism and is led by Sharad Pawar, an ally of the Chordia family that owns Panchshil—but that would be of little help in this investigation.

Political power in India rests largely with the Indian National Congress, a nationalist party that has controlled the central government for almost 50 years.

(However, Trump is very popular with the Hindu Sena, a far-right radical nationalist group that sees his anti-Muslim stance as a sign he would take an aggressive stand against Pakistan.

When Trump turned 70 in June, members of that organization threw a birthday party for the man they called “the savior of humanity.”

If you read along we see the web grow to Turkey, UAE, Lybia,Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Russia

The dealings of the Trump Organization reach into so many countries that it is impossible to detail all the conflicts they present in a single issue of this magazine, but

a Newsweek examination of the company has also found deep connections in China, Brazil, Bulgaria, Argentina, Canada, France, Germany and other countries.

Never before has an American candidate for president had so many financial ties with American allies and enemies, and

never before has a business posed such a threat to the United States.

If Donald Trump wins this election and his company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from the Trump family, the foreign policy of the United States of America could well be for sale.

Let's see if this sort of investigations and articles generate questions for mR Trump… Or will Hillary continue to be Gored?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9...-To-Do-Its-Job

[Spurtacular]

while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTIO N=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-14-35-04

#PayForPlay

Everything's for sale. And this is who the ST lemmings mindlessly supported.