For those with doubts...Clinton Foundation timeline

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.thompsontimeline.com/category/clinton-foundation/

Everything you need to know, all articles in timeline linked. :bobo

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://charlesortel.com/

[SnakeBoy]

This isn't an important topic. We need to focus on things that matter to this country like what to do when a chick gets fat after winning Miss Universe.

[dabom]

This isn't an important topic. We need to focus on things that matter to this country like what to do when a chick gets fat after winning Miss Universe.

Staying up at night and doing coke then you get the sniffles during the week. :lmao

[TheSanityAnnex]

This isn't an important topic. We need to focus on things that matter to this country like what to do when a chick gets fat after winning Miss Universe.
Took no more than the following post to prove your point.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.thompsontimeline.com/category/clinton-foundation/

Everything you need to know, all articles in timeline linked. :bobo

Pretty well done. Researched, linked, and professional.

Still doesn't even begin to change my mind about not voting for Clinton, which says volumes about this election. :depressed

[RandomGuy]

This isn't an important topic. We need to focus on things that matter to this country like what to do when a chick gets fat after winning Miss Universe.

Az1JyDJ_iKU

Let me know when you have watched it, what your thoughts are on his commentary.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Pretty well done. Researched, linked, and professional.

Still doesn't even begin to change my mind about not voting for Clinton, which says volumes about this election. :depressed

Put aside discussing who you are voting for and let's just stick to the Clinton Foundation. After reading through all of this are you now convinced it was used as a money laundering operation?

[TheSanityAnnex]

RandomGuy when you have time check out the drop down menu on the site. Damning information in every single one on every person involved.

[Reck]

Put aside discussing who you are voting for and let's just stick to the Clinton Foundation. After reading through all of this are you now convinced it was used as a money laundering operation?

A legal operating machine? Why isn't the foundation shut down then?

[rmt]

Put aside discussing who you are voting for and let's just stick to the Clinton Foundation. After reading through all of this are you now convinced it was used as a money laundering operation?

TSA, the corruption is widespread. I had had hopes that the FBI was neutral and would do a fair job investigating the email/Foundation issues. They have handed out immunity to Hillary's people (so they can't be touched and will have no problem with security clearance in Hillary's new administration) and allowed all the evidence destroyed so that on the very small chance that Trump should win, there can be no trace/investigation carried out later.

[Blake]

You wanna do a Trump foundation timeline too are you just gonna play for Team Repub

[TheSanityAnnex]

You are free to find and post a Trump foundation timeline. Trying to compare the two is laughable though as Trump was not doing the same thing while being the Secretary of State.

[TheGreatYacht]

You wanna do a Trump foundation timeline too are you just gonna play for Team Repub
Trump Foundation Timeline

1988 - Oct. 3, 2016

Rest In Piss

[FkLA]

Amazing that people can passionately support these scumbags.

It's hilarious that posters claim there's a bias against Shillary because she's a woman. In reality, all the focus has been put on the fat Mrs. Universe and Trump's tax returns while her shady ass foundation, refusal to release her Wall Street speech transcripts, refusal to release her emails, the DNC being biased against Bernie, etc has slowly been swept under the rug. It's as if Trump being a lunatic magically changes the fact that she's a terrible person/candidate. :lol

[rmt]

No tape of Hillary interviewed by the FBI - only agents' notes. Cel phones and i-pad destroyed by hammer. Computers scrubbed clean by BleachBit. Laptop lost in the mail. Part of immunity deal - Mills' computer physically destroyed after FBI (limited dates) search. Sounds like a coverup to me.

[Blake]

You are free to find and post a Trump foundation timeline. Trying to compare the two is laughable though as Trump was not doing the same thing while being the Secretary of State.

you're excusing Trump because he wasn't holding office at the time of his misuse of foundation funds?

Lol, you're sad.

[Winehole23]

Unfortunately, the GOP's nominee is so badly flawed that the influence peddling and money laundering seem not so important.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Other than the Swiss Bank payment I am not sure what I am supposed to be worried about. The arms deals are hardly a Clinton initiative. About half of it was when neither Clinton was in office.

[Winehole23]

A 100% corrupt Hilary Clinton beats Donald Trump.

Perhaps that's as it should be: sometimes the crook is the better candidate and deserves to win.

[Warlord23]

To be fair, that timeline from the OP is damning. There is little doubt in my mind that the Clintons are corrupt as hell, and they used their influence to benefit people who backed them financially or otherwise.

However, IMO the Clinton Foundation itself is a sideshow - an enabler, a vehicle - and not the main story. Bill Clinton set up a charitable foundation because he wasn't running for office after 2000 and didn't have a campaign account or Super PAC to funnel money into. Trump isn't a politician so he used the Trump Foundation (an outfit pretending to be a charity but not even registered as one) to bribe people and make donations that profited him.

The politicians who are running for office - Congressmen, Senators, state legislators etc - do it via campaign donations, either to themselves or to their allied Super PACs. You need money to win elections in America, so what better way to prolong your political career than to whore yourself out to businessmen and companies - you legislate in their favor and they pour money into keeping you in power.

The point being - corruption is built into the fabric of American politics. Scrutinizing a couple of charitable foundations will not change the fact that money has an undue influence in who gets elected and what laws they create. There is one potential benefit from Trump's circus of a candidacy - that people keenly scrutinize their politicians' financial backers, and how the candidate's actions benefit these backers. And the resulting fury may someday grow to a point where the public can unanimously demand an end to legalized bribery by reforming campaign finance.

[DarrinS]

Az1JyDJ_iKU

Let me know when you have watched it, what your thoughts are on his commentary.


Hard to argue against that. Harris is one of the great rational thinkers out there. I suspect you might not like his takes on some issues, e.g. Syrian refugees and BLM.

[101A]

To be fair, that timeline from the OP is damning. There is little doubt in my mind that the Clintons are corrupt as hell, and they used their influence to benefit people who backed them financially or otherwise.

However, IMO the Clinton Foundation itself is a sideshow - an enabler, a vehicle - and not the main story. Bill Clinton set up a charitable foundation because he wasn't running for office after 2000 and didn't have a campaign account or Super PAC to funnel money into. Trump isn't a politician so he used the Trump Foundation (an outfit pretending to be a charity but not even registered as one) to bribe people and make donations that profited him.

The politicians who are running for office - Congressmen, Senators, state legislators etc - do it via campaign donations, either to themselves or to their allied Super PACs. You need money to win elections in America, so what better way to prolong your political career than to whore yourself out to businessmen and companies - you legislate in their favor and they pour money into keeping you in power.

The point being - corruption is built into the fabric of American politics. Scrutinizing a couple of charitable foundations will not change the fact that money has an undue influence in who gets elected and what laws they create. There is one potential benefit from Trump's circus of a candidacy - that people keenly scrutinize their politicians' financial backers, and how the candidate's actions benefit these backers. And the resulting fury may someday grow to a point where the public can unanimously demand an end to legalized bribery by reforming campaign finance.

Great take.

[TheSanityAnnex]

you're excusing Trump because he wasn't holding office at the time of his misuse of foundation funds?

Lol, you're sad.
I'm not excusing him, I said the two aren't comparable. The amount of money into Trump's foundation is pennies compared to what Clinton brought in, and her holding office while doing so is magnitudes worse.

[TheSanityAnnex]

When FBI Director James Comey announced (http://tcismith.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d819%2f82-%3eLCE58451%40%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=5587295&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=51359&Action=Follow+Link) that he would not recommend prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) for violation of the Espionage Act (http://tcismith.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d819%2f82-%3eLCE58451%40%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=5587295&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=51358&Action=Follow+Link) (Title 18, United States Code, Section 793), he made a decision based upon political considerations, not based upon principles of criminal law or justice.

There are five key points to be made in analyzing the director’s very flawed recommendation:
1. There was a disregard for criminal negligence

After ignoring a wealth of evidence that would have met the intent prong of the statute, Mr. Comey essentially wrote subsection 793(f), the gross negligence section, out of the applicable statute in the Clinton email investigation. The director’s explanation that he had worked all his life to “decriminalize negligence” and thereby would not recommend prosecution was nothing short of ridiculous. It should be first noted that Mr. Comey offered no such examples of his “life’s work,” and it is doubtful that there are any.
There has always been prosecution of criminal negligence at every level of our legal system, and with good reason. Negligent homicide by reckless driving is one common example that should come readily to mind. Starting a fire in a fireworks stand, resulting in an explosion and death of a customer or employee, would be another. Intent to kill is not required for conviction of reckless homicide in either case for obvious reasons. The negligent actions taken are inherently reckless as to endanger human life, and are therefore included in virtually every state and federal criminal code as punishable offenses.
It must also be noted that Mrs. Clinton’s unguarded emails may have similarly resulted in at least one death — that of an Iranian scientist who was executed by Iran as a spy after his name surfaced in one of the emails on her unprotected private server.

2. Comey was not a prosecutor at the time of the scandal, and could not, therefore, exercise prosecutorial discretion

While Mr. Comey may have exercised prosecutorial "discretion" in some of his prior posts as an assistant United States attorney or deputy attorney general, Mr. Comey was not a prosecutor at the time of the email scandal investigation. He was and remains the nation’s chief investigator, sworn to uphold the laws of the country as written by Congress, and he was neither sworn nor entitled to re-write those statutes to his own satisfaction.
While there are undoubtedly some examples of investigative discretion in our system, most are relegated to petty offenses, such as warning tickets for minor speeding violations. At the offense level where Mrs. Clinton’s offenses are found, such decisions are reserved to a prosecuting authority; they are not left to investigators.

3. Comey revealed proof of guilt and then pardoned it without authority

When Mr. Comey took the unprecedented step of revealing the conclusions of his investigation prior to submitting those findings to the Department of Justice, and of delivering an excoriation of Mrs. Clinton’s negligence to the public, he characterized her actions as “extremely careless,” words used in trial jury instructions to explain the very meaning of the phrase “gross negligence” used in the statute. He thereby confirmed that his investigation had revealed proof of guilt, but chose to issue a pardon instead — another action he had no authority to take.

4. Comey lacks any substantive argument to support his actions

In defending his action, Mr. Comey fell back on a bad habit of his, one for which he has actually been congratulated in the past. While acting as deputy attorney general, when he didn’t like a memo he received supporting parts of a terrorist surveillance program, he referred to it dismissively as “fatally flawed,” saying “no lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it.” When another seasoned attorney replied that he had relied on the memo, Comey’s response was, “No good lawyer” — a remark that earned him praise from those opposing the program under scrutiny.
Similarly, when Comey presented his findings in the Clinton investigation, he preemptively declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict on such evidence, a claim subsequently challenged by those as credentialed as Rudy Giuliani and Joseph diGenova, former United States attorneys for, respectively, the Southern District of New York and Washington, D.C. In both instances, Comey put nothing on the table to substantively defend his decisions. He resorted instead to insulting, ad hominem attacks on anyone who would dare to disagree with his imperial decisions — decisions that could NOT, after thorough review, be defended in any other fashion.


5. Comey abrogated his responsibility to the law and the nation

Some have theorized that this was a conscious decision by Comey to take no action because he believed that the decision to be made — in essence, to disqualify Mrs. Clinton from the presidency — was one properly reserved for the voters. In so deciding, if in fact such was his decision, his action was much more in line with the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate than with the wisdom of Solomon. The Constitution’s system of checks and balances inherently recognizes that there are times when voters, being human, will make mistakes, and elect public officers who — also being human — will violate the laws of the nation or the Constitution itself.
Here, Comey was not even dealing with an elected official, just one on her way to a nomination. If our system falters or ultimately collapses, those such as Mr. Comey (and, arguably, Chief Justice Roberts in the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision) who are charged with providing the checks and balances contemplated by the Constitution — but who could not find the courage to apply them — will have to answer to history.

Proof of intent is generally established by evaluating the actions of the suspect. Here those actions included Clinton’s unlawful establishment of a private email server, numerous “false exculpatory statements” (lies about her actions), destruction of evidence, and further lies about her lies and destruction of evidence.

Comey ignored such evidence in order to reach his negligence analysis, which, as previously discussed, is “fatally flawed.” His final justification — that no one had ever been prosecuted for a violation of subsection 793(f) — is similarly absurd. Indictment precedents are not required if the elements of a statutory violation are satisfied by the misconduct of the offender.

By definition, there always has to be a first time. By any neutral and competent analysis, Mr. Comey, this was that time. Having demonstrated that you were not up to the task of performing that analysis, you have shown America that it is time for you to go.



http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/299661-5-reasons-comey-should-have-recommended-clintons-indictment

[TheSanityAnnex]

Julian Assange is no Google fan. He doesn’t like Hillary Clinton much, either.


And early yesterday morning, the founder of Wikileaks was supposed to unleash (http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/4/13159914/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-julian-assange-google) a fresh batch of leaked (or stolen) documents intended to upend (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-changes-venue-for-its-october-surprise-annoucement/) Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects. Pro-Trump enthusiasts branded the announcement (https://twitter.com/infowars/status/783081022254481408) as a can’t-miss occasion that would change the tide of the neck-and-neck race.


But that didn’t happen. Instead, he plugged his book and promised that more documents will be released every week until Election Day, Nov. 7. The documents, Assange said Monday night, will expose damning evidence against a range of powerful entities and issues, like the military, the oil industry, the U.S. presidential race and Google.

Yes, Google.


Assange’s problem with Google traces back to Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google and current chairman of the board, and his ties to the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The Wikileaks founder never liked Google, as a longtime advocate of a decentralized internet (https://newrepublic.com/article/81017/wikileaks-internet-pirate-party-save), and he’s also railed against digital surveillance for decades.




But Google became particularly suspect to Assange (http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/8/google_in_the_white_house_assange) around 2009 when, according to Assange, the company seemed to be working more closely with the federal government. The purported intersection of the corporate internet superpower with the U.S. government represented the perfect storm for Assange, who wrote a book in 2014 titled “When Google Met Wikileaks,” detailing the company’s close ties with U.S. policymakers.


“Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad,” Assange wrote. “But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation.”
Over the years, Assange has released diplomatic cables and emails that seem to link Google employees to operations in Afghanistan and Iran, including attempts by a State Department official (who later went to work for Google) to move Afghan phone companies (http://archive.is/loAlC) to U.S. military bases, as well as meetings with Iranian leaders (http://archive.is/sjxuG#selection-223.31-223.41), purportedly with the support of (http://archive.is/IoFw4) the U.S. State Department.




But the leaked documents never really hurt Google, as the company has only continued to grow and become more profitable in the years since Assange published them.
Wikileaks surged into the public eye in 2010 after Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. solider now serving a prison sentence for leaking classified documents, used the website to blow the whistle on deadly human rights abuses during military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Assange has since used his public status to criticize U.S. foreign policy, especially since Clinton, when serving as Secretary of State, publicly denounced (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112903231.html) Wikileaks as an attack on U.S. foreign relations and criticized the website (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0215/Hillary-Clinton-champions-Internet-freedom-but-cautions-on-WikiLeaks) for laundering “stolen” documents.
And Assange, being a longtime internetactivist, began tracking Google’s ties to the State Department, which came into focus after a former Clinton staffer named Jared Cohen left to work for Google in 2010.
Assange claims Schmidt has worked closely with Clinton’s campaign for years (http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/2/exclusive_julian_assange_on_when_google), and indeed, Alphabet’s executive chairman does back a startup (http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/) that’s become a major provider of data analytics for the Clinton campaign. Schmidt now also chairs a new innovation board (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-innovation-idUSKCN0W421V) at the Pentagon intended to bring Silicon Valley’s expertise in leveraging new technologies into military projects.


Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that Alphabet backs this startup.


While it certainly makes sense for the Pentagon to court the nation’s top technology talent, those concerned with the collaborative relationship between the government’s domestic mass surveillance operations and technology companies like Google may feel discomfort with the formalized relationship between Schmidt and the Pentagon. Although, to be clear, Schmidt hasn’t been involved in the everyday workings of Google since 2011.


Wikileaks brands itself as a radical transparency organization, even if more recently it seems to be operating like an opposition research (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12929262/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-julian-assange-hate) firm against Hillary Clinton after releasing nearly 20,000 (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/) private emails in July that led to the resignation of several key figures within the Democratic National Committee.


Assange admitted that he released the documents (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0) ahead of the Democratic National Convention in an attempt to turn the American public against Clinton. But that hasn’t exactly worked.

The general lack of context around how Wikileaks operates, as well as the website’s habit of taking to Twitter with unhinged accusations against Clinton, often muddies the points Assange tries to make. So far, the data dumps have exposed questionable behavior by certain individuals associated with the Clinton campaign, but haven’t shown deep systemic culpability.


If Assange’s claims about Google’s collusion with Clinton and the U.S. government are proven true by newly released documents, that could mean a whole new line of inquiry.

http://www.recode.net/2016/10/5/13167726/assange-wikileaks-hates-google-clinton-leaks-hack

[rmt]

I hope all this stuff on Google is not true but suspected fishy going ons since "Hillary in" search results. Dd accepted a return offer from Google - turning down a Facebook interview and final interview/trip to Microsoft. I told her to explore her options and try different companies but she loved her internship.

What does Comey think all this destruction of evidence is - cels & iPads hammered, computers BleachBitted, laptops "lost" in the mail, immunity deals including destruction of computers - what is that but obstruction?

[spurraider21]

Az1JyDJ_iKU

Let me know when you have watched it, what your thoughts are on his commentary.
listened in full... that was terrific

[101A]

Az1JyDJ_iKU

Let me know when you have watched it, what your thoughts are on his commentary.

So I watched the video, and agree with it. But I got to wondering if by any chance there were interviews from Trump prior to this run where he sounded, well, intelligent. Where he strung together more complex thoughts. I only watched one, but it is here. This is from 1988. Doesn't sound different. In fact, he sounds EXACTLY the same. It is, actually, prophetic; and explains what is happening now, at least from Trump's point of view:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

[FkLA]

To be fair, that timeline from the OP is damning. There is little doubt in my mind that the Clintons are corrupt as hell, and they used their influence to benefit people who backed them financially or otherwise.

However, IMO the Clinton Foundation itself is a sideshow - an enabler, a vehicle - and not the main story. Bill Clinton set up a charitable foundation because he wasn't running for office after 2000 and didn't have a campaign account or Super PAC to funnel money into. Trump isn't a politician so he used the Trump Foundation (an outfit pretending to be a charity but not even registered as one) to bribe people and make donations that profited him.

The politicians who are running for office - Congressmen, Senators, state legislators etc - do it via campaign donations, either to themselves or to their allied Super PACs. You need money to win elections in America, so what better way to prolong your political career than to whore yourself out to businessmen and companies - you legislate in their favor and they pour money into keeping you in power.

The point being - corruption is built into the fabric of American politics. Scrutinizing a couple of charitable foundations will not change the fact that money has an undue influence in who gets elected and what laws they create. There is one potential benefit from Trump's circus of a candidacy - that people keenly scrutinize their politicians' financial backers, and how the candidate's actions benefit these backers. And the resulting fury may someday grow to a point where the public can unanimously demand an end to legalized bribery by reforming campaign finance.

So in other words, what the great Bernard Sanders was doing was truly revolutionary and Murica really fucked up. Aided by the DNC and media who prefers the status quo of course.

Agree that they're far from being the only corrupt politicians out there but they're probably the most blatant example. Very few, if any, politicians have the worldwide influence that the Clintons have. So subsequently not many have built an empire out of 'public service' like they have either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hard to argue against that. Harris is one of the great rational thinkers out there. I suspect you might not like his takes on some issues, e.g. Syrian refugees and BLM.

His issue with BLM makes sense from the standpoint in how they conflate all of the incidents the same undermines the message. Nonetheless he is completely obtuse to the systemic issues regarding extra rights for LEO and conflicts of interest with the investigations into police crimes which are common to all incidents.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So in other words, what the great Bernard Sanders was doing was truly revolutionary and Murica really fucked up. Aided by the DNC and media who prefers the status quo of course.

Agree that they're far from being the only corrupt politicians out there but they're probably the most blatant example. Very few, if any, politicians have the worldwide influence that the Clintons have. So subsequently not many have built an empire out of 'public service' like they have either.

Boomers overwhelmingly voted for Clinton over Sanders.

[RandomGuy]

Put aside discussing who you are voting for and let's just stick to the Clinton Foundation. After reading through all of this are you now convinced it was used as a money laundering operation?

No.

The foundation used almost 90% of the money on actual charity.

Do you dispute that?

[RandomGuy]

This isn't an important topic. We need to focus on things that matter to this country like what to do when a chick gets fat after winning Miss Universe.


Here’s audio of Trump bragging about walking in on naked beauty pageant contestants
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/306088/donald-trump-having-sex-walking-in-on-naked-beauty-pageant-contestants-howard-stern/



It was a bit more than that.

If you want to vote for pussy-grabbing muppets, that is your problem.

[RandomGuy]

This isn't an important topic. We need to focus on things that matter to this country like what to do when a chick gets fat after winning Miss Universe.

You're right.

We should be talking about the potential direct conflicts of interest in his finances:

If Clinton Needs to Close Her Foundation, Trump Needs to Dissolve His Company
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/president-trumps-conflicts-of-interest.html

Or maybe we should be talking about a "tremendous" businessman who fucking doesn't know what a blind trust is after having been running for president for almost a full year. What a fucking Biznis geenyus.


Trump plan to avoid business conflicts of interest doesn't fly
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/president-trumps-conflicts-of-interest.html

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy when you have time check out the drop down menu on the site. Damning information in every single one on every person involved.

h1Lfd1aB9YI

Sums it up.

There is never as much there as people like you wish there were. Why is that?

[SnakeBoy]

Here’s audio of Trump bragging about walking in on naked beauty pageant contestants
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/3060...-howard-stern/

It was a bit more than that.

If you want to vote for pussy-grabbing muppets, that is your problem.

:lol Poor RG so shocked by the Howard Stern show

https://1001movienights.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/vapors.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

RG wants to protect the dignity of the oval office by putting a Clinton in it.

[RandomGuy]

RG wants to protect the dignity of the oval office by putting a Clinton in it.

So what do you think about Trumps potential conflicts of interest?

[SnakeBoy]

So what do you think about Trumps potential conflicts of interest?

Don't care...he's not going to win and if he did he would be a shitty POTUS the same as Hillary will be a shitty POTUS. I don't want him to win because I like him.

[RandomGuy]

Don't care...he's not going to win and if he did he would be a shitty POTUS the same as Hillary will be a shitty POTUS. I don't want him to win because I like him.

You genuinely don't care?

What do you care about?

[RandomGuy]

RG wants to protect the dignity of the oval office by putting a Clinton in it.

Hillary Clinton would be an order of magnitude more dignified than Donald Trump, and even you know it.

[rmt]

Don't care...he's not going to win and if he did he would be a shitty POTUS the same as Hillary will be a shitty POTUS. I don't want him to win because I like him.

Why do you like him?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you like him?

He wasn't being entirely clear.


I don't want him to win because I like him.

Should probably read:

"Me wanting him to win, has nothing to do with liking Donald, because I don't. There is some other reason that I didn't specify."

Poor word choice, easily misconstrued.

[rmt]

He wasn't being entirely clear.



Should probably read:

"Me wanting him to win, has nothing to do with liking Donald, because I don't. There is some other reason that I didn't specify."

Poor word choice, easily misconstrued.

Why don't you let him speak for himself? I don't want to hear your guesses.

[clambake]

salty

[SnakeBoy]

Why do you like him?

I like him for what he is doing to the GOP. There is a chance that in the aftermath of Trump the GOP stops catering to the social/religious extreme right & the neocons and becomes a solutions oriented fiscally responsible conservative party. It might be wishful thinking but Trump has already demonstrated that base doesn't actually care that much about gays getting married or women having their rape babies. We'll see what happens.

The neocons are already backing Hillary since she is is one of them. Hopefully the base doesn't forget that and purges them from the party. They can go back to the party they belong in.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I like him for what he is doing to the GOP. There is a chance that in the aftermath of Trump the GOP stops catering to the social/religious extreme right & the neocons and becomes a solutions oriented fiscally responsible conservative party. It might be wishful thinking but Trump has already demonstrated that base doesn't actually care that much about gays getting married or women having their rape babies. We'll see what happens.

The neocons are already backing Hillary since she is is one of them. Hopefully the base doesn't forget that and purges them from the party. They can go back to the party they belong in.

Is St Ronnie a neocon or not?

[SnakeBoy]

Is St Ronnie a neocon or not?

Reagan wasn't a neocon.

[SnakeBoy]

He wasn't being entirely clear.



Should probably read:

"Me wanting him to win, has nothing to do with liking Donald, because I don't. There is some other reason that I didn't specify."

Poor word choice, easily misconstrued.

I've said it in other threads, didn't feel the need to repeat myself.

What do you like about Hillary's Syria position of toppling the Assad regime with freedom bombs, leaving another failed state in the middle east and starting a war with Russia in the process?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Reagan wasn't a neocon.

He was more fiscally irresponsible and warmonger as any of the one's you labeled. If anything he was the one that started the trend of cut taxes and increase defense spending to warmonger.

[rmt]

Why don't you let him speak for himself? I don't want to hear your guesses.

RG, I apologize for my last thoughtless comment. I welcome any thoughts, comments and guesses (as long as they are respectful and yours always are).

[rmt]

I like him for what he is doing to the GOP. There is a chance that in the aftermath of Trump the GOP stops catering to the social/religious extreme right & the neocons and becomes a solutions oriented fiscally responsible conservative party. It might be wishful thinking but Trump has already demonstrated that base doesn't actually care that much about gays getting married or women having their rape babies. We'll see what happens.

The neocons are already backing Hillary since she is is one of them. Hopefully the base doesn't forget that and purges them from the party. They can go back to the party they belong in.

The bolded is what I want too - the country is too far left to waste political capital on social issues. Even though I am from the religious right, I am content with a standstill on social issues and hope for fixing the economy. It is insane to carry on as fiscally irresponsible as we have - and the infrastructure, SS and Medicare problems are looming.

[spurraider21]

h1Lfd1aB9YI

Sums it up.

There is never as much there as people like you wish there were. Why is that?
that's a good sum-up of the email issue leading to the investigation, but it doesn't go into the deliberate deletion of the emails, which imo is the more damning aspect anyway

[SnakeBoy]

He was more fiscally irresponsible and warmonger as any of the one's you labeled. If anything he was the one that started the trend of cut taxes and increase defense spending to warmonger.

lol Reagan raised taxes as has been pointed out by liberals on this forum many times.

Reagan increased military deficit spending in the face of the Cold War. I think it was a wise move and you're too young to to know better. Hillary is doing her best to restart the Cold War...or worse.

What war did Reagan start?

Name a President post Reagan who dropped fewer freedom bombs than Reagan.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol Reagan raised taxes as has been pointed out by liberals on this forum many times.

Reagan increased military deficit spending in the face of the Cold War. I think it was a wise move and you're too young to to know better. Hillary is doing her best to restart the Cold War...or worse.

What war did Reagan start?

Name a President post Reagan who dropped fewer freedom bombs than Reagan.

Uh no he lowered the shit out of taxes and then repealed some of them when the growth he promised never happened and the deficit exploded. Meanwhile he raised defense spending and cut food stamps to appease right wing morons.

To pretend that he was not the first champion of Bork style supply side and deregulation is horseshit.

Comparing the 9/11 era with Reagans is disingenuous. The difference is that while Reagan went after tiny countries like Grenada and Panama unilaterally. Bush the Greater and Clinton actually worked with our allies to build a coalition for Kuwait and Yugoslavia.

[SnakeBoy]

Uh no he lowered the shit out of taxes and then repealed some of them when the growth he promised never happened and the deficit exploded. Meanwhile he raised defense spending and cut food stamps to appease right wing morons.

To pretend that he was not the first champion of Bork style supply side and deregulation is horseshit.

Comparing the 9/11 era with Reagans is disingenuous. The difference is that while Reagan went after tiny countries like Grenada and Panama unilaterally. Bush the Greater and Clinton actually worked with our allies to build a coalition for Kuwait and Yugoslavia.

Then why are you bringing up Reagans era?

[ElNono]

I like him for what he is doing to the GOP. There is a chance that in the aftermath of Trump the GOP stops catering to the social/religious extreme right & the neocons and becomes a solutions oriented fiscally responsible conservative party. It might be wishful thinking but Trump has already demonstrated that base doesn't actually care that much about gays getting married or women having their rape babies. We'll see what happens.

The neocons are already backing Hillary since she is is one of them. Hopefully the base doesn't forget that and purges them from the party. They can go back to the party they belong in.

You want a re-shuffle and start again, but that can take a while...

[SnakeBoy]

You want a re-shuffle and start again, but that can take a while...

Yep

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263668&p=8746323&viewfull=1#post8746323

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then why are you bringing up Reagans era?

I meant in terms of war activity. Once the towers were brought down and Bush the lesser blew up Baathist Iraq everything changed in terms of US military involvement. If you are going to compare you have to take that into consideration. Supply side deregulatory Hooveresque neocon economics is a different thing.

[SnakeBoy]

I meant in terms of war activity. Once the towers were brought down and Bush the lesser blew up Baathist Iraq everything changed in terms of US military involvement. If you are going to compare you have to take that into consideration. Supply side deregulatory Hooveresque neocon economics is a different thing.

You're not making any sense. You already said there is no comparison...and neoconservatism doesn't have anything to do with economic/regulatory/tax policies

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're not making any sense. You already said there is no comparison...and neoconservatism doesn't have anything to do with economic/regulatory/tax policies

Bullshit. Laissez faire economics is a tenant of neocons.

I meant there was no comparison in foreign policy during the cold war and the 9/11 era in terms of relative involvement. Don't tell me what I meant.

[SnakeBoy]

Bullshit. Laissez faire economics is a tenant of neocons.

I meant there was no comparison in foreign policy during the cold war and the 9/11 era in terms of relative involvement. Don't tell me what I meant.

So when you (for whatever reason) asked if Reagan was a neocon you say you meant "in terms of war activity" but you say there's no comparison and you were really talking about economic policy? You're not making sense to me...and what does any of it have to do with what you originally quoted me on?

[Winehole23]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/452/l.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So when you (for whatever reason) asked if Reagan was a neocon you say you meant "in terms of war activity" but you say there's no comparison and you were really talking about economic policy? You're not making sense to me...and what does any of it have to do with what you originally quoted me on?

Neoconservatives are about unilateral US military intervention and significant military spending paired with laissez faire economics. From Regan to Gingrich/Gramm to Bush to Graham today.

I'm saying you cannot compare 'bombs dropped' between the end of the cold war when any military action risked thermonuclear annihilation and the era of Bush the lessers dismantling of Baathist Iraq. Reagan toppled two banana republics while modern presidents have to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/452/l.gif

whippits?

[SnakeBoy]

Neoconservatives are about unilateral US military intervention and significant military spending paired with laissez faire economics. From Regan to Gingrich/Gramm to Bush to Graham today.

I'm saying you cannot compare 'bombs dropped' between the end of the cold war when any military action risked thermonuclear annihilation and the era of Bush the lessers dismantling of Baathist Iraq. Reagan toppled two banana republics while modern presidents have to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like.

That's really a bad definition of neoconservatism

You still haven't answered why you even brought this up when you first quoted me and asked if Reagan was a neocon. Maybe this will help you Fuzzy...

How Reagan Beat the Neocons
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/how-reagan-beat-the-neocons.html?_r=0

Ronald Reagan was no hawk – and certainly no neocon
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/04/ronald-reagan-no-hawk-no-neocon

Reagan Was No Neocon
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reagan-was-no-neocon

Was Reagan the First Neoconservative?
http://theamericancause.org/patreaganneoconservative.htm

[SnakeBoy]

It is a bogus claim. Reagan was no neocon. Unchallenged by progressives, rightwing hawks have rewritten history, leaving neocons like Kristol and Gove free to appropriate his name for their own belligerent ends.

Don't get me wrong. Reagan was no peacenik, either. A card-carrying cold warrior, he secretly sold weapons to Iran and Iraq, illegally funded the Nicaraguan Contras, provided aid to a Guatemalan army later accused by a UN-backed truth commission of carrying out "acts of genocide", and supported Osama bin Laden's mujahideen in Afghanistan, and Jonas Savimbi's Unita in Angola.

Nonetheless, he succeeded in avoiding a direct military confrontation. As the liberal US writer Peter Beinart argues in his book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris: "On the ultimate test of hawkdom – the willingness to send US troops into harm's way – Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totalled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war – the 1986 bombing of Libya – was even briefer."

In contrast, consider the blood-spattered record of his successors. George Bush launched Gulf war I and sent troops into Panama and Somalia; Bill Clinton bombed Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia; George W Bush invaded Afghanistan and gave us Gulf war II and the war on terror. And the Nobel peace prize winner Obama had troops surging in Afghanistan, launched a war on Libya and sent drones into Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."

These are the words not of a hawk but of a dove; of a leader who did not share the neocons' blind faith in the use of military force to spread freedom.

[RandomGuy]

Why don't you let him speak for himself? I don't want to hear your guesses.

Merely trying to be helpful.

[RandomGuy]

I like him for what he is doing to the GOP. There is a chance that in the aftermath of Trump the GOP stops catering to the social/religious extreme right & the neocons and becomes a solutions oriented fiscally responsible conservative party. It might be wishful thinking but Trump has already demonstrated that base doesn't actually care that much about gays getting married or women having their rape babies. We'll see what happens.

The neocons are already backing Hillary since she is is one of them. Hopefully the base doesn't forget that and purges them from the party. They can go back to the party they belong in.

Crap, I actually agree with that. I really do hope the GOP improves because of this.

A one-party country does no one good.

[RandomGuy]

RG, I apologize for my last thoughtless comment. I welcome any thoughts, comments and guesses (as long as they are respectful and yours always are).

S'all good.

Not like I am any paragon of virtue when it comes to the occasional short comment.

People have called me on it, and they are right. The greatest war is the war against one's lower self, at the risk of borrowing the wisdom of others.

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit. Laissez faire economics is a tenant of neocons.

I meant there was no comparison in foreign policy during the cold war and the 9/11 era in terms of relative involvement. Don't tell me what I meant.

Hmm.

People say "neocons", but I have yet to see a coherent definition of the term.

Might be helpful to introduce one. ?

[tlongII]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14690919_1130042207030812_8371260852607937354_n.jp g?oh=47a3f00f05754af4a379662d08b4a2d8&oe=58A0BCC9

[z0sa]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14690919_1130042207030812_8371260852607937354_n.jp g?oh=47a3f00f05754af4a379662d08b4a2d8&oe=58A0BCC9

Vile.

[SnakeBoy]

Hmm.

People say "neocons", but I have yet to see a coherent definition of the term.

Might be helpful to introduce one. ?

There isn't a clean definition for the modern use of the term. In the context of the 1980's and the Cold War neocons could be specifically defined as those who believed we could defeat the Soviet Union by using military action to spread freedom and democracy around the globe. As all of the articles I linked point out, Reagan wasn't one of them. It wasn't about economic policy.

Now today if you ask Bill Kristol or pretty much anyone at the Weekly Standard I guess they would include economic policy, free trade, etc. and claim that Reagan was one of them. After all they were very successful in redefining Reagan as one of them even though he wasn't a hawk and he wasn't a free trader. Alzheimer's was the best thing that ever happened to the neocons.

[boutons_deux]

Vile.

It's their country, their rules, their religion. NONE of USA's business, except for the oil and gas, for which USA will whore itself.

[RandomGuy]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14690919_1130042207030812_8371260852607937354_n.jp g?oh=47a3f00f05754af4a379662d08b4a2d8&oe=58A0BCC9

Are those official government donations?

Or private citizens in those countries?

I am willing to bet the latter.

If so, you have "this country is horrible, and some people from this horrible country donated money to a charity that helps women and children".

I'm confused.

What exactly are you pointing out here?

Be specific, and please allow me the respect of providing some sources. I like double checking things.

[RandomGuy]

There isn't a clean definition for the modern use of the term. In the context of the 1980's and the Cold War neocons could be specifically defined as those who believed we could defeat the Soviet Union by using military action to spread freedom and democracy around the globe. As all of the articles I linked point out, Reagan wasn't one of them. It wasn't about economic policy.

Now today if you ask Bill Kristol or pretty much anyone at the Weekly Standard I guess they would include economic policy, free trade, etc. and claim that Reagan was one of them. After all they were very successful in redefining Reagan as one of them even though he wasn't a hawk and he wasn't a free trader. Alzheimer's was the best thing that ever happened to the neocons.

Without a good working definition that everybody can agree on, it is far too easy to talk past each other, and not really say anything.

Personally I think the term is somewhat useless because it is just so, pardon, fuzzy.

[Spurminator]

It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2 C000%2C000). Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started. When it began (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_form_1023_application_for_tax_e xemption.pdf) in 1997, the foundation’s main goal was to build the Clinton presidential library, although it left open the option to "engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities" that nonprofits are allowed to do under federal law.

The Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124.html) to build the library. (According to the Post, the Saudis gave a similar amount to the George H.W. Bush library.) After the library donation, the Saudis gave very little and stopped giving entirely (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html) during the time Clinton was secretary of state. She stepped down in early February 2013.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/

[SnakeBoy]

Without a good working definition that everybody can agree on, it is far too easy to talk past each other, and not really say anything.

Personally I think the term is somewhat useless because it is just so, pardon, fuzzy.

It's not usually fuzzy, I think most people understand neocons in the GOP to be synonymous with hawks in the republican party. Fuzzy is just trying to fuzzy up the term to say Reagan was a neocon. To make what point?...he still hasn't answered.

[boutons_deux]

"Reagan wasn't one of them."

His invasions of Grenada, Panama, his CIA dicking around in, destabilizing Central America were clearly neocon military operations to fight democratically elected socialists.

Neocon means generally America preferring HARD military power to control its planetary empire, to grab resources, rather than preferring soft power of economic bullying and diplomacy.

Neocons don't give a shit about spreading freedom and democracy (that's smokescreen, pablum for naive Americans), care only about America's military/economic empire.

[SnakeBoy]

"Reagan wasn't one of them."

His invasions of Grenada, Panama, his CIA dicking around in, destabilizing Central America were clearly neocon military operations to fight democratically elected socialists.

Neocon means generally America preferring HARD military power to control its planetary empire, to grab resources, rather than preferring soft power of economic bullying and diplomacy.

Neocons don't give a shit about spreading freedom and democracy (that's smokescreen, pablum for naive Americans), care only about America's military/economic empire.

Damn straight, Comrade!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmm.

People say "neocons", but I have yet to see a coherent definition of the term.

Might be helpful to introduce one. ?

ne·o·con·serv·a·tive
ˌnēōkənˈsərvədiv/
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
noun
1.
a person with neoconservative views.

[Winehole23]

The original neocons were Cold War liberals who broke to the GOP in the late sixties when the Dems co-opted the tiwar left. Kristol the senior and John Podhoretz were the main propounders, but you could easily include Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn in the definition, so there was never clean partisan definition there.

Reagan partook of elements, but was never a doctrinaire politician. More of a trad Cold Warrior with due deference to career technocrats.

It got fuzzier still with the demise of the USSR.

Fuzzy to start, fuzzy in the middle, and fuzzy now, tbh.

[RandomGuy]

Sometimes I wish tlongII was able to answer simple questions honestly.

What does it say about your worldview that it collapses so easily under modest, honest questioning?

What does it say about your worldview when being dishonest is the only way to maintain it?

[tlongII]

If you only knew what my worldview is.

[RandomGuy]

If you only knew what my worldview is.

Here is what I do know about you.

Your posting habits are to put things that paint either Replubicans in a good light, or Democrats in a bad light.

What you post generally turns out to be actively misleading, if not outright false. Much of it leaves out information that any good critical thinking person would feel important in reaching a conclusion.

When asked direct questions that might lead reasonable people to the conclusion that your material was misleading, you stop answering them.

When you do post something that requires some reading or understanding, and you are answering questions, you appear not to fully understand some of what you post here.

Reading your material makes me actively wonder why some people feel the need to be misleading, or allow themselves to be misled by unskeptically accepting misleading material as painting a full picture of a topic.

I assume, based on the above that your posts are generally indicative of what and how you think, since I have no reason to believe otherwise.

If your worldview is so superior to that of what you call "liberal", you shouldn't have to be dishonest, IMO. Liberals do believe some stupid shit at times.

I understand it is fully human to dig your heels in when presented with evidence that contradicts pre-existing beliefs, but that your material is generally so easily dismissed doesnt' seem to bother you, or ever force you to re-think anything that I have ever seen.

I can conclude based on this, that you don't seem to value truth very much.

I like to think you aren't representative of conservatives in general, but given the information bubble so many like to place themselves in, that may be optimistic.

[tlongII]

tl;dr

[Winehole23]

Clinton Foundation confirms gift from Qatar during HRC's time as Sec'y of State:


The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.


Qatari officials pledged the money in 2011 to mark the 65th birthday of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton's husband, and sought to meet the former U.S. president in person the following year to present him the check, according to an email from a foundation official to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta. The email, among thousands hacked from Podesta's account, was published last month by WikiLeaks.


Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family's globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors.


If a new foreign government wished to donate or if an existing foreign-government donor, such as Qatar, wanted to "increase materially" its support of ongoing programs, Clinton promised that the State Department's ethics official would be notified and given a chance to raise any concerns.


Clinton Foundation officials last month declined to confirm the Qatar donation. In response to additional questions, a foundation spokesman, Brian Cookstra, this week said that it accepted the $1 million gift from Qatar, but this did not amount to a "material increase" in the Gulf country's support for the charity. Cookstra declined to say whether Qatari officials received their requested meeting with Bill Clinton.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL

[Winehole23]

The State Department has said it has no record of the foundation submitting the Qatar gift for review, and that it was incumbent on the foundation to notify the department about donations that needed attention.

[boutons_deux]

So where is the crime? a fucking "reporting" crime? :lol

[Winehole23]

failing to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest (influence peddling) reflects badly on the Clinton Foundation, the State department and its head officer at the time.

it's politically damaging per se: there needn't be any illegality.

[boutons_deux]

failing to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest (influence peddling) reflects badly on the Clinton Foundation, the State department and its head officer at the time.

it's politically damaging per se: there needn't be any illegality.

Trash's business frauds, business thieving, tax avoidance/evasion, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, bigotry are politically damaging enough to be fatal.

Gonna be hilarious Tue night to watch Hillary grab her "investigators", haters by the balls and rip 'em off.

[Winehole23]

Trash's business frauds, business thieving, tax avoidance/evasion, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, bigotry are politically damaging enough to be fatal.Probably so.


Gonna be hilarious Tue night to watch Hillary grab her "investigators", haters by the balls and rip 'em off.How will she do that? Comey will probably resign.

[boutons_deux]

Probably so.

How will she do that? Comey will probably resign.

She'll replace Comey sooner rather than later.

Obama was fucking naive to think he could "reach across the aisle" in 2009, and naive to put a Repug as head of the FBI.

[Spurminator]

Probably so.

How will she do that? Comey will probably resign.

There's going to be some FBI housecleaning well beyond Comey

[Winehole23]

yep. I wasn't sure what boutons was talking about.

I seldom feel safe assuming. I have better luck asking posters what they mean.

[Reck]

Nah, I dont think she will fire Comey. It would look like a personal vendetta.

He should resign on his own. Or Obama should do the firing being that he hired him.

[Winehole23]

a good roundup of stories here:

https://medium.com/real-in-other-words/the-clinton-foundation-stories-18423be590e2#.lqmif1jyh