FBI re-opens Hillary Email investigation

[Winehole23]

Trump could dispel this nasty rumor by disclosing his tax returns. What's he got to hide?

[DarrinS]

Trump could dispel this nasty rumor by disclosing his yax forms. What's he got to hide?

Damn, now we have to have yax forms, too? Smh

[TheSanityAnnex]

"Trump is cheating taxpayers!"

Her husband pardoned a 40 million dollar tax debt of a campaign donor and illegal trader Marc Rich.

John Podesta and Marc Rich were good friends. Marc Rich's lawyer was Peter Kadzik. Peter Kadzik was recommended by Podesta because Kadzik kept Podesta out of jail during Lewinsky scandal. Fast forward to Peter Kadzik now working for the DOJ
Peter Kadzik was feeding Podesta information on what was being found on Clinton during initial investigation. When the FBI announced they were starting up investigations again, Peter Kadzik announces to congress he and the DOJ now assist the FBI.

[Winehole23]

A nice dodge on your claim he deducted his creditors losses personally,it's not a dodge. That's how he probably did it.

What's your theory?

[Winehole23]

And why won't Trump put it all to bed by releasing his taxes. If he's on the up and up, there'd be no reason not to.

[DarrinS]

it's not a dodge. That's how he probably did it.

What's your theory?

Uhh, use the existing tax laws?

[ElNono]

Your comments make little sense concerning his main point

"If you know the answers to any of the remaining questions -- not a belief of what the answers might be but you are in possession of hard facts that prove any of the above, either in the positive or negative, you have a duty to this Republic and the people in it to make those answers known.
If you do not then you stand as equally responsible for every "Yes" answer that is ultimately proved, and the harm that comes to this Republic as a consequence."



This is an appeal to emotion. Not even sure what it's trying to accomplish.

[CosmicCowboy]

it's not a dodge. That's how he probably did it.

What's your theory?

real estate professionals can deduct rental losses that others can’t. But there are perfectly reasonable policy reasons for this rule, and it wasn’t placed in the tax law to bestow benefits solely upon wealthy real estate developers; rather, the rule was meant to correct an inequity in the tax law that was preventing hard working real estate brokers and agents — as well as those involved in construction and, yes…real estate development – from receiving equal treatment when compared with taxpayers who don’t ply their trade in the real estate world.

Next, let’s just establish that we don’t know that the $15 million in losses comes from rental losses; it could just as easily have been generated from an operating partnership or S corporation that Trump owned during 1995.

That being said, it’s probably fair to surmise, based on what we know about Trump, that the losses were attributable to rental activities. So let’s move on with that premise. Is that so wrong?

To understand that, no, it’s not so wrong, we’ve got to understand what tax shelter existed before the real estate professional rule came into existence, how Congress’s response to that shelter harmed the hard-working agents, brokers and builders referenced above, and how the real estate professional rules were meant to undo that inequity for a very narrow category of taxpayers.

So let’s hop in the way-back machine and get a little understanding of how the tax law evolved to enable Trump to take a $15 million rental loss in 1995, but to simultaneously (and hopefully) understand that just because Trump benefited from the real estate professional rule does not make it an “outrageous, special tax break.”

Pre-1986: Tax Shelters For Everyone!

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, tax shelters were readily available to anyone with disposable income and the patience to be a landlord. Consider the following example:

In 1985, A, a doctor, expects to earn wages of $300,000. On January 1, 1985, in hopes of sheltering his wage income, A purchases a home as a rental property and rents the home at fair market value. The rental is low-maintenance, and A is rarely required to visit the property other than to collect the occasional check. By virtue of large depreciation deductions, the rental generates a sizeable net loss, which A uses to partially offset his wage income, significantly lowering his tax bill. It is a win-win situation for A; he generates losses largely through non-cash depreciation deductions, while all the while, the rental home is appreciating in value.

Post-1986: No Rental Losses for Anyone!

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 put an end to such shelters, however, with the enactment of Section 469. Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 1986, a taxpayer’s loss from a “passive activity” could only be used to offset income from a “passive activity.” A passive activity is defined in part as:

Any trade or business of the taxpayer in which the taxpayer does not “materially participate,” and
Any rental activity of the taxpayer regardless of the taxpayer’s level of participation.
As a result of the treatment of all rental activities as passive activities, the doctor’s loss in the previous example from his rental home would be treated as a passive loss. And because the doctor’s wages are not treated as passive income, the rental loss could no longer be used to offset the doctor’s wage income. Instead, the loss would be carried forward until the doctor either generated passive income or disposed of the rental property in a fully taxable transaction.

Rental Losses for Some?

Soon after the enactment of Section 469, certain taxpayers felt they were being unfairly punished by the de facto classification of all rental activities as passive. Consider the following example:

B is a real estate developer, specializing in the development of residential homes. B builds two developments; developments 1 and 2. B sells all of the homes in development 1 to customers as part of his ordinary trade or business. The homes in development 2, however, B holds and rents to families.

While B’s development business would generally be considered one trade or business, after the advent of Section 469, B is treated as conducting two separate activities for the purposes of that section. The first activity is B’s development and sale activity, which is nonpassive because it is a trade or business in which B materially participates. The second activity is B’s development and rental activity, which under the rules of Section 469, is treated as per se passive regardless of B’s level of participation because it is a rental activity. Thus, if B generates income from the sale of homes in development 1, and a loss from the rental of homes in development 2, the rules of Section 469 will prohibit B from using the passive rental losses to offset the nonpassive income from the sale of the homes in development 1.

B’s complaint, of course, is that he is engaged in one trade or business that encompasses multiple aspects of the real estate industry: development, sale, and rental. By not allowing B to use the losses from the rental portion of the business against income from the sale portion of the business, the law treats B differently than taxpayers in a non-real estate trade or business who are free to use losses from one aspect of their business against income from another.

Does that sound fair? In any other walk of life, if a taxpayer is engaged in a business with multiple aspects — say a car wash that also sells decorative air fresheners – a loss from one part of the business can offset income from the other. But just because someone who makes their living in the real estate world chooses to hold, as part of that overall business — a rental property or twelve, they should get whip-sawed and be prevented from taking the rental loss against the income from other real estate activities?

It doesn’t sound fair to me, and it didn’t sound fair to Congress, either. By 1993, Congress recognized the inequities wrought by this per se passive treatment of all rental activities, and sought to provide an exception to a narrow category of taxpayers: so-called “real estate professionals.” Added to the Code was subsection 469(c)(7), which provides that a taxpayer who qualifies as a real estate professional overcomes the presumption that all rental activities are passive; instead, if the taxpayer establishes that he or she materially participates in the rental activity, the activity would become nonpassive.

Now, I don’t want to get into detail about how one qualifies as a real estate professional, because I’ve done that here and here. What’s important is that in order to qualify, you must prove to the IRS that you truly, day-in and day-out, make your living in the real estate world, either by selling it, building it, or renting it. Only then — by proving that you’re fully invested in the real estate industry — are you entitled to the same treatment that every. other. taxpayer. receives: the ability to offset income from one aspect of the business with losses from another.

And trust me when I say that meeting the real estate professional designation is not an easy task. One could argue that more case law has been devoted to these rules than any other single tax issue since 1993, and the cases rarely go in the favor of the taxpayer. The intent was that the ability to use rental losses against other income be restricted to people who spend every day working the real estate industry, and the IRS and courts have ensured that this is indeed the case.

So rip Trump for any number of things. But leave the real estate professional rules alone. They do not create an inequity in the tax law; they fix one.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/10/04/defending-trumps-tax-losses-the-real-estate-professional-exception-is-not-a-loophole/#78f03b3a73cc

[Winehole23]

Does it square with your sense of morals or responsibility to claim losses of nearly a billion dollars borne by your lenders to shirk the responsibilty to pay taxes for a decade?

A simple yes or no will do.

[DarrinS]

"All the President's Men"

Ever seen that movie?

I wish journalists still had that kind of investigative curiosity.

[Winehole23]

It's not legal to do that anymore. Can you guess why?

[Winehole23]

"All the President's Men"

Ever seen that movie?

I wish journalists still had that kind of investigative curiosity.That's an answer to what question?

[Spurminator]

"All the President's Men"

Ever seen that movie?

I wish journalists still had that kind of investigative curiosity.

Many of them do. We either (1) don't take the time to read anything beyond a headline, or (2) write them off as shills for the opposition.

[DarrinS]

Does it square with your sense of morals or responsibility to claim losses of nearly a billion dollars to shirk the responsibilty to pay taxes for a decade?

A simple yes or no will do.

Shit, I'd pay no taxes forever if the law allowed. I'm pretty sure most people would. Or, do they get to that section on deductions and say, meh fuck it?

[CosmicCowboy]

Does it square with your sense of morals or responsibility to claim losses of nearly a billion dollars borne by your lenders to shirk the responsibilty to pay taxes for a decade?

A simple yes or no will do.

You don't know where the loss came from. Like Boutons, you just claim it's investor losses he took with zero facts to back up your claim. Say it enough times and stupid people might start to believe it.

If a bank or investor lost money with Trump they would be the ones taking the deduction, not Trump. The IRS doesn't let them both take the deduction.

[DarrinS]

Many of them do. We either (1) don't take the time to read anything beyond a headline, or (2) write them off as shills for the opposition.

Remember when the press loved Wikileaks?

[Winehole23]

real estate professionals can deduct rental losses that others can’t. But there are perfectly reasonable policy reasons for this rule, and it wasn’t placed in the tax law to bestow benefits solely upon wealthy real estate developers; rather, the rule was meant to correct an inequity in the tax law that was preventing hard working real estate brokers and agents — as well as those involved in construction and, yes…real estate development – from receiving equal treatment when compared with taxpayers who don’t ply their trade in the real estate world.

Next, let’s just establish that we don’t know that the $15 million in losses comes from rental losses; it could just as easily have been generated from an operating partnership or S corporation that Trump owned during 1995.

That being said, it’s probably fair to surmise, based on what we know about Trump, that the losses were attributable to rental activities. So let’s move on with that premise. Is that so wrong?

To understand that, no, it’s not so wrong, we’ve got to understand what tax shelter existed before the real estate professional rule came into existence, how Congress’s response to that shelter harmed the hard-working agents, brokers and builders referenced above, and how the real estate professional rules were meant to undo that inequity for a very narrow category of taxpayers.

So let’s hop in the way-back machine and get a little understanding of how the tax law evolved to enable Trump to take a $15 million rental loss in 1995, but to simultaneously (and hopefully) understand that just because Trump benefited from the real estate professional rule does not make it an “outrageous, special tax break.”

Pre-1986: Tax Shelters For Everyone!

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, tax shelters were readily available to anyone with disposable income and the patience to be a landlord. Consider the following example:

In 1985, A, a doctor, expects to earn wages of $300,000. On January 1, 1985, in hopes of sheltering his wage income, A purchases a home as a rental property and rents the home at fair market value. The rental is low-maintenance, and A is rarely required to visit the property other than to collect the occasional check. By virtue of large depreciation deductions, the rental generates a sizeable net loss, which A uses to partially offset his wage income, significantly lowering his tax bill. It is a win-win situation for A; he generates losses largely through non-cash depreciation deductions, while all the while, the rental home is appreciating in value.

Post-1986: No Rental Losses for Anyone!

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 put an end to such shelters, however, with the enactment of Section 469. Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 1986, a taxpayer’s loss from a “passive activity” could only be used to offset income from a “passive activity.” A passive activity is defined in part as:

Any trade or business of the taxpayer in which the taxpayer does not “materially participate,” and
Any rental activity of the taxpayer regardless of the taxpayer’s level of participation.
As a result of the treatment of all rental activities as passive activities, the doctor’s loss in the previous example from his rental home would be treated as a passive loss. And because the doctor’s wages are not treated as passive income, the rental loss could no longer be used to offset the doctor’s wage income. Instead, the loss would be carried forward until the doctor either generated passive income or disposed of the rental property in a fully taxable transaction.

Rental Losses for Some?

Soon after the enactment of Section 469, certain taxpayers felt they were being unfairly punished by the de facto classification of all rental activities as passive. Consider the following example:

B is a real estate developer, specializing in the development of residential homes. B builds two developments; developments 1 and 2. B sells all of the homes in development 1 to customers as part of his ordinary trade or business. The homes in development 2, however, B holds and rents to families.

While B’s development business would generally be considered one trade or business, after the advent of Section 469, B is treated as conducting two separate activities for the purposes of that section. The first activity is B’s development and sale activity, which is nonpassive because it is a trade or business in which B materially participates. The second activity is B’s development and rental activity, which under the rules of Section 469, is treated as per se passive regardless of B’s level of participation because it is a rental activity. Thus, if B generates income from the sale of homes in development 1, and a loss from the rental of homes in development 2, the rules of Section 469 will prohibit B from using the passive rental losses to offset the nonpassive income from the sale of the homes in development 1.

B’s complaint, of course, is that he is engaged in one trade or business that encompasses multiple aspects of the real estate industry: development, sale, and rental. By not allowing B to use the losses from the rental portion of the business against income from the sale portion of the business, the law treats B differently than taxpayers in a non-real estate trade or business who are free to use losses from one aspect of their business against income from another.

Does that sound fair? In any other walk of life, if a taxpayer is engaged in a business with multiple aspects — say a car wash that also sells decorative air fresheners – a loss from one part of the business can offset income from the other. But just because someone who makes their living in the real estate world chooses to hold, as part of that overall business — a rental property or twelve, they should get whip-sawed and be prevented from taking the rental loss against the income from other real estate activities?

It doesn’t sound fair to me, and it didn’t sound fair to Congress, either. By 1993, Congress recognized the inequities wrought by this per se passive treatment of all rental activities, and sought to provide an exception to a narrow category of taxpayers: so-called “real estate professionals.” Added to the Code was subsection 469(c)(7), which provides that a taxpayer who qualifies as a real estate professional overcomes the presumption that all rental activities are passive; instead, if the taxpayer establishes that he or she materially participates in the rental activity, the activity would become nonpassive.

Now, I don’t want to get into detail about how one qualifies as a real estate professional, because I’ve done that here and here. What’s important is that in order to qualify, you must prove to the IRS that you truly, day-in and day-out, make your living in the real estate world, either by selling it, building it, or renting it. Only then — by proving that you’re fully invested in the real estate industry — are you entitled to the same treatment that every. other. taxpayer. receives: the ability to offset income from one aspect of the business with losses from another.

And trust me when I say that meeting the real estate professional designation is not an easy task. One could argue that more case law has been devoted to these rules than any other single tax issue since 1993, and the cases rarely go in the favor of the taxpayer. The intent was that the ability to use rental losses against other income be restricted to people who spend every day working the real estate industry, and the IRS and courts have ensured that this is indeed the case.

So rip Trump for any number of things. But leave the real estate professional rules alone. They do not create an inequity in the tax law; they fix one.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/10/04/defending-trumps-tax-losses-the-real-estate-professional-exception-is-not-a-loophole/#78f03b3a73ccthe rules Trump used were outlawed by Congress.

If it was all proper, why doesn't he prove it by releasing his tax returns like every other person who runs for national office?

[ElNono]

You don't know where the loss came from. Like Boutons, you just claim it's investor losses he took with zero facts to back up your claim. Say it enough times and stupid people might start to believe it.

If a bank or investor lost money with Trump they would be the ones taking the deduction, not Trump. The IRS doesn't let them both take the deduction.

This whole guessing thing could be avoided by showing his tax returns...

[CosmicCowboy]

the rules Trump used were outlawed by Congress.

If it was all proper, why doesn't he prove it by releasing his tax returns like every other person who runs for national office?

Good lord...did Bouton's hack your account?

[Spurminator]

Remember when the press loved Wikileaks?

What makes you think they don't?

[Spurminator]

"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" doesn't apply to Presidential candidates, you sillies.

[Winehole23]

Trump could dispel all this rumor-mongering by releasing his taxes. He must have good reasons not to.

[DarrinS]

What makes you think they don't?

Srsly?

[Winehole23]

Shit, I'd pay no taxes forever if the law allowed. I'm pretty sure most people would. Or, do they get to that section on deductions and say, meh fuck it?You'd be a shirker if the law allowed it.

Nuff said. No reponsibility unless the law commands.

[CosmicCowboy]

Trump could dispel all this rumor-mongering by releasing his taxes. He must have good reasons not to.

Considering all the bizarre and uninformed claims concerning just the three pages that were released (including some of the assertions made by you in this thread) he probably is better off not releasing highly complicated multi thousand page tax returns.

[CosmicCowboy]

You'd be a shirker if the law allowed it.

Nuff said. No reponsibility unless the law commands.

Do you take the deductions you are legally allowed to take?

[DarrinS]

Trump could dispel all this rumor-mongering by releasing his taxes. He must have good reasons not to.

Or, he could say I'll realease my tax return when Hillary releases her emails (mostly recipes, I'm sure).

[Winehole23]

Good answer. Now we know where you're coming from.

Reap the fruits of the common good, but no sense of responsibilty that it should cost you.

You think you're owed it for free.

[Winehole23]

Or, he could say I'll realease my tax return when Hillary releases her emails (mostly recipes, I'm sure).We've seen scads of emails. Trump tax returns?

Zero.

[Spurminator]

Srsly?

There have been some in the media who have criticized Wikileaks.

There were some in the media who criticized Wikileaks when it first became a thing.

Throughout it all, they've reported on Wikileaks and the fallout that occurred because of it.

Where's the disconnect that you would attribute to "the press" as a whole? And why are you so convinced this wouldn't have happened in the age of Woodward and Bernstein?

[Winehole23]

Do you take the deductions you are legally allowed to take?I don't try to weasel out of shit or claim losses borne by others. I don't game it.

Bully on you if you do.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't try to weasel out of shit or claim losses borne by others. I don't game it.

Bully on you if you do.

I'm actually conservative on both my corporate and personal taxes. I haev had clean audits on both.

And there's that totally unsubstantiated claim again that Trump deducted others losses on his tax returns. Please explain how you think that would work and how you think the IRS would allow it.

[Winehole23]

And no, I don't take everything available. I don't have enough money to pay someone else to teach me how to screw Uncle Sam and my fellow citizens.

Honestly, it's not worth my time to try to figure out how to shirk my responsibilities to the public thing -- the republic, we used to say.

[ducks]

Sound scared

[Winehole23]

I'm actually conservative on both my corporate and personal taxes. I haev had clean audits on both.

And there's that totally unsubstantiated claim again that Trump deducted others losses on his tax returns. Please explain how you think that would work and how you think the IRS would allow it.I'll dig up the link. Tax law allowed it at the time. It was so screwed up a Republican Congress changed it.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'll dig up the link. Tax law allowed it at the time. It was so screwed up a Republican Congress changed it.

While you are at it, explain how you know that's what it was. The most knowledgeable tax professionals in the world can't determine where the losses came from based on the three pages that were published.

[Winehole23]

There are some pretty good guesses. Trump could clear it all up in one day but for some reason he won't.

Do you think presidential candidates should release tax returns, CC?

[Winehole23]

Don't you think voters should know how candidates stand to profit from the power they might wield?

[Winehole23]

Sound scaredI'm scared either way, tbh. It's a scary juncture.

[Winehole23]

I strongly dislike both candidates.

[boutons_deux]

While you are at it, explain how you know that's what it was. The most knowledgeable tax professionals in the world can't determine where the losses came from based on the three pages that were published.

I read that he took Other Peoples' Money, lost it all, then claimed the losses as deductions on his personal income tax.

And some investors agreed to write down the value of their investments in Trash's fiascos. The IRS considers such write down of financial obligations as effective revenue, just like they do with a bank writes down or excuses a mortgage.

As was said, even the IRS-hating Repugs voted to make that scam illegal shortly after.

[CosmicCowboy]

There are some pretty good guesses. Teump could clear it all up in one day but foe some reason he won't.

Do you think presidential candidates should release tax returns, CC?

I'm honestly not sure. I do know that mine last year was about 90 pages long just with my relatively simple business and personal structure. I can't imagine how complex Trumps would be. Would it really serve any purpose to have political hacks poring over every detail of his multi thousand page tax return?

[Winehole23]

Please pardon me for asking for a particle of transparency regarding your man. He won't give it, and you won't demand it for some reason, even though it's expected of everone else.

[DarrinS]

There have been some in the media who have criticized Wikileaks.

There were some in the media who criticized Wikileaks when it first became a thing.

Throughout it all, they've reported on Wikileaks and the fallout that occurred because of it.

Where's the disconnect that you would attribute to "the press" as a whole? And why are you so convinced this wouldn't have happened in the age of Woodward and Bernstein?

I'll let someone on your side explain


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m9YroW7VN8

[CosmicCowboy]

I read that he took Other Peoples' Money, lost it all, then claimed the losses as deductions on his personal income tax.

And some investors agreed to write down the value of their investments in Trash's fiascos. The IRS considers such write down of financial obligations as effective revenue, just like they do with a bank writes down or excuses a mortgage.

As was said, even the IRS-hating Repugs voted to make that scam illegal shortly after.

:lmao

We all know the kind of shit you read, Boo...:lol

[Winehole23]

I'm honestly not sure. I do know that mine last year was about 90 pages long just with my relatively simple business and personal structure. I can't imagine how complex Trumps would be. Would it really serve any purpose to have political hacks poring over every detail of his multi thousand page tax return?if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Every candidate before Trump put up with it. He's either a coward, has something to hide, or both.

[Spurminator]

I'll let someone on your side explain


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m9YroW7VN8

I've seen this video. Did you watch it or did you just read the title?

And what do you have against Greenwald? Why isn't he on your side?

[Spurminator]

Did you watch it or did you just read the title?


Many of them do. We either (1) don't take the time to read anything beyond a headline, or (2) write them off as shills for the opposition.

... or we take at face value partisan headlines that don't match the content.

[Winehole23]

reading past the lede isn't DarrinS's thing. it's bit him on the ass like a thousand times.

[Spurminator]

I mean the whole segment is about how the press is covering Wikileaks. He points out why it's important, even though Clinton partisans may not think it's important. There's not a shred of "roasting" even happening.

[Winehole23]

Your comments make little sense concerning his main point

"If you know the answers to any of the remaining questions -- not a belief of what the answers might be but you are in possession of hard facts that prove any of the above, either in the positive or negative, you have a duty to this Republic and the people in it to make those answers known.
If you do not then you stand as equally responsible for every "Yes" answer that is ultimately proved, and the harm that comes to this Republic as a consequence."


Beg pardon but they do.

Process matters. If the FBI has the hard facts, they'll come out in due time. If rogue agents leak the facts, they'll spoil the case.

It's very irresponsible to take the case straight to the newspapers in an attempt to influence electoral outcomes.

Period. This is banana republic shit.

[Winehole23]

LE is supposed to stay the hell away from elections. Breaking this norm is a bad, bad idea.

Republicans will rue the day they encouraged it. Someday, not if but when now the norm's been broken, their candidate will be on the receiving end.

When they cry, the Dems will say, with complete justice, when it happened to us you approved.

[Winehole23]

Norms matter. Maintaining the appearance of impartiality, even if it is mostly appearance, matters.

Decorum and manners matter too, even if it's mostly bullshit.

I know it's hard to believe, but a lot of the normative good government bullshit, comity, norms of respect, not being an asshole when the other side wins, deference to popular sovereignty, actually matters if you want government (interest competition and dispute resolution and public works) -- to work.

[Winehole23]

You fucking take turns. You let the other guy have a shot -- the people elected him/her, after all, and you respect him/her for that at least. Or at least pretend to. You'll expect the same of your adversaries when you win.

Dropping the pretence of respecting others who disagree more or less belongs to barbarism.

Like Marlowe said in Heart of Darkness, society is the lie. I shudder to think what we'll replace it with.

[TheSanityAnnex]

DOJ tossed impartiality out the window multiple times. DOJ tossed protocol out the window multiple times.

DOJ changed the rules of the game, FBI pulled out a new playbook.

[Spurminator]

"The FBI is Trumpland"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

[TheSanityAnnex]

"The FBI is Trumpland"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

Clickbait title. Article is good though.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The Dallas IRS Office That's Quietly Determining the Fate of the Clinton Foundation
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/the-dallas-irs-office-thats-quietly-determining-the-fate-of-the-clinton-foundation-8864404

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/512138307870785536/Fe00yVS2_reasonably_small.png (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks)
WikiLeaks– http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhBQAGAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAAFAAYAAAIFjI+pawUAOw==Verified account ‏@wikileaks (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks)

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhDQAMAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAANAAwAAAILjI+py+0Po5y0ngIAOw==


Two terrabyte drive with Clinton White House emails missing, presumed stolen from National Archives https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Nov03_2016 (https://t.co/p3eZqxKxke) …

[DMC]

And why won't Trump put it all to bed by releasing his taxes. If he's on the up and up, there'd be no reason not to.

I guess when Hillary releases her emails...

Seems pretty fucking hypocritical to think someone's personal information is public fodder but classified documents from a public official are not that important.

[DMC]

Trump carried forward a loss borne by his creditors to shirk tax liability for over a decade -- in a magnitude at least twice that.

The amount was 2% of the total liabilities claimed that year.

So yeah, Trump screwed the taxpayer at least twice as bad as Marc Rich.

Legally, of course, so you probably salute his guile.

Well let's see:

Trump: Legally takes tax breaks
Rich: Tax evader, won't return to US.

Bill Clinton pardons Marc Rich
Hillary demands to see Trumps tax returns because he legally used tax rules (that she had years to change) to save himself money.

Yeah, he did the right thing.

Trump didn't screw tax payers. The tax laws screwed tax payers. Trump was within the law.

Marc Rich on the other hand, well we know he wasn't within the law so yeah, he and Bill screwed the tax payers out of 40 million.

[spurraider21]

Well let's see:

Trump: Legally takes tax breaks
Rich: Tax evader, won't return to US.

Bill Clinton pardons Marc Rich
Hillary demands to see Trumps tax returns because he legally used tax rules (that she had years to change) to save himself money.

Yeah, he did the right thing.

Trump didn't screw tax payers. The tax laws screwed tax payers. Trump was within the law.

Marc Rich on the other hand, well we know he wasn't within the law so yeah, he and Bill screwed the tax payers out of 40 million.hillary probably deleted her crap because she was hiding shit. if everything trump did was fully within the law as he brags about, why is he hiding it? just trolling?

[Winehole23]

The Dallas IRS Office That's Quietly Determining the Fate of the Clinton Foundation


http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/the-dallas-irs-office-thats-quietly-determining-the-fate-of-the-clinton-foundation-8864404IRS declassification of the Clinton Foundation and clawback of back taxes is a hundred times likelier than an indictment, but would be nearly as damaging politically.

[Winehole23]

Well let's see:

Trump: Legally takes tax breaks
Rich: Tax evader, won't return to US.

Bill Clinton pardons Marc Rich
Hillary demands to see Trumps tax returns because he legally used tax rules (that she had years to change) to save himself money.

Yeah, he did the right thing.

Trump didn't screw tax payers. The tax laws screwed tax payers. Trump was within the law.

Marc Rich on the other hand, well we know he wasn't within the law so yeah, he and Bill screwed the tax payers out of 40 million.Do you think we should see Trump's tax returns?

Why or why not?

[FromWayDowntown]

Trump didn't screw tax payers. The tax laws screwed tax payers. Trump was within the law.

How can you possibly know that to the certainty of a declaration? Choosing to believe it does not actually make it so. And until we see his tax returns, nobody who hasn't seen those returns has any basis to know what happened other than a choice to believe it or disbelieve it.

Further, the precedent is now set, and there's a real risk that as time goes on, we will continue to know less and less about our Presidential candidates, which seems both counterproductive and dangerous.

[StrengthAndHonor]

I guess when Hillary releases her emails...

Seems pretty fucking hypocritical to think someone's personal information is public fodder but classified documents from a public official are not that important. DMC

[Winehole23]

Seems pretty fucking hypocritical to think someone's personal information is public fodder but classified documents from a public official are not that important.I never said so. I happen to think Hilary's email hairball is a fairly big deal and discloses incompetence and dire lack of judgment at a minimum, and I've consistently said so.

Unfortunately for the country and the GOP, it's overshadowed by the GOP's truly horrendous nominee and the fact that the GOP and its media megaphones shot their wad and their credibility on Benghazi.

[Winehole23]

Against practically anyone but Trump, HRC loses the election over this shit.

[Winehole23]

DOJ tossed impartiality out the window multiple times. DOJ tossed protocol out the window multiple times.When and how?

Be specific, if you can.

[Reck]

When and how?

Be specific, if you can.

Get ready to be 4channed, son. :lol

[tlongII]

Don't you guys think the IRS would notice if Trump was cheating on his taxes?

[StrengthAndHonor]

hillary probably deleted her crap because she was hiding shit. if everything trump did was fully within the law as he brags about, why is he hiding it? just trolling?
Because politically speaking, a billionaire not paying taxes while using loopholes (legally available) for them could rub voters the wrong way.

[Winehole23]

Don't you guys think the IRS would notice if Trump was cheating on his taxes?He has, and they noticed. Remember the settlement Trump paid to the IRS for the under the table contribution to Pam Bondi through his charitable foundation? This was in September..

[StrengthAndHonor]

Don't you guys think the IRS would notice if Trump was cheating on his taxes?
Given the fact he has been and continued to be audited by the IRS, it's probably a good indication he's still following the US tax code.

[pgardn]

Don't you guys think the IRS would notice if Trump was cheating on his taxes?

Lot more than that.

How does he make his money and through whom.
So if it's not a problem give it up.
The public wants to see how people running for office make and hide their money.

[TheSanityAnnex]

When and how?

Be specific, if you can.

Lynch meeting with Clinton on the tarmac days before the FBI's announcement. Kadzick using personal email to tell Clinton what DOJ was doing. DOJ granting 5 immunity deals when they could have subpoenaed or gotten warrants to seize evidence. DOJ allowing material witnesses to corroborate and be present when others were testifying. DOJ allowing a subject of the investigation to also act as legal representation for Clinton.

[boutons_deux]

Don't you guys think the IRS would notice if Trump was cheating on his taxes?

The VRWC "social welfare" dark-money PACs are ALL FRAUDS, but the Repug have intimidated the IRS into not shutting them down, while defunding IRS by many $100Ms.

[spurraider21]

Because politically speaking, a billionaire not paying taxes while using loopholes (legally available) for them could rub voters the wrong way.
But he's already said so and in fact brags about it. So what's he still hiding?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Agents within the Federal Bureau of Investigation want to take down the personnel at the top of the Justice Department, according to a former D.C. based U.S. Justice attorney.


“Just think of the FBI as the Vietcong. That’s what they are. They are digging tunnels under the Justice Department. They are going to sink that place,” Washington attorney Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Thursday.
DiGenova, who has bureau sources close to the FBI investigation, named Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kaznick, Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell as senior level staff at DOJ have who have “done something that they are going to regret.”


FBI agents pushed forward, against the wishes of the Justice Department and without the support of bureau leadership, to investigate the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal report (http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957).

As a result of the obstacles thrown in their way, DiGenvoa says the agents within the bureau have gone “rogue” and any upper level bureaucrat that gets in their way from investigating Clinton could be exposed.

“Even though this is technically under the auspices of the bureau, nobody is going to control these agents,” he said.

Additionally, DiGenova, who was the first to say (http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/29/dc-attorney-fbi-never-destroyed-laptops-of-clinton-aides/) that laptops belonging to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were never destroyed in a DOJ deal as previously reported, said that the laptop co-owned by Clinton staffer Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner has information on it that agents likely already reviewed and know the content of.


“I’m sure they’ve opened them up for god sake’s. You don’t think anybody is going to do that when they have access to it? Of course they’ve done that,” he said, noting he believes Comey notified Congress that the agency was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s server and knew the content of the most pertinent emails to the investigation.





“He would’ve never sent that letter unless he had been told there was devastating information that showed that she had committed perjury — she Hillary Clinton had committed perjury on Capitol Hill. She had lied to the FBI during her interview on the July 4 weekend. And that in fact the 33,000 emails are probably on the laptop that she deleted.”


DiGenova explained, “NSA has all of her emails. They have all of her emails. They’re out in Utah. Remember that big building they build out there–59,000,000 square feet ? It’s got nothing but super computers. Hillary Clinton’s emails are all out there in Utah. If the 33,000 deleted emails are there that’s the end of the ball game because they prove conclusively what she deleted was not personal.”


He later said, “Everything is on that laptop. It’s probably adverse to everything she has said publicly and probably proves that she has committed multiple perjuries. So their stuff like that over at the department of state.” He added, “There’s classified information. There’s pay to play. There’s stuff about destroying documents. No doubt it’s the panoply of issues that they have tried to cover up.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/03/dc-attorney-fbi-agents-working-to-expose-top-doj-officials/#ixzz4P3p6u6O0

[Reck]

THat makes a lot of sense. Let's use the laptop of a pervert to hide our evil deeds because no one will think twice about looking in here.

That's a little thin.

[TheSanityAnnex]

THat makes a lot of sense. Let's use the laptop of a pervert to hide our evil deeds because no one will think twice about looking in here.

That's a little thin.

Where did you come up with Clinton using Weiner's laptop to hide her evil deeds?

[TheSanityAnnex]

e3zcKTEJTXU

[Reck]

Where did you come up with Clinton using Weiner's laptop to hide her evil deeds?

I read your link.

"And that in fact the 33,000 emails are probably on the laptop that she deleted.”

He later said, “Everything is on that laptop. It’s probably adverse to everything she has said publicly and probably proves that she has committed multiple perjuries. So their stuff like that over at the department of state.” He added, “There’s classified information. There’s pay to play. There’s stuff about destroying documents. No doubt it’s the panoply of issues that they have tried to cover up.”

Seems to me that guy is making assumptions about something he doesn't know much about.

[DarrinS]

reading past the lede isn't DarrinS's thing. it's bit him on the ass like a thousand times.

Yeah, I didn't "read" the video. But I did watch it. :lol

God, you're a sanctimonious ass.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I read your link.

"And that in fact the 33,000 emails are probably on the laptop that she deleted.”

He later said, “Everything is on that laptop. It’s probably adverse to everything she has said publicly and probably proves that she has committed multiple perjuries. So their stuff like that over at the department of state.” He added, “There’s classified information. There’s pay to play. There’s stuff about destroying documents. No doubt it’s the panoply of issues that they have tried to cover up.”

Seems to me that guy is making assumptions about something he doesn't know much about.

From what you bolded how did you reach the conclusion that Clinton used Weiner's laptop to hide her evil deeds? Or were you just making assumptions about something you don't know much about?

[Reck]

From what you bolded how did you reach the conclusion that Clinton used Weiner's laptop to hide her evil deeds? Or were you just making assumptions about something you don't know much about?

Whose laptop is being combed through right now?

And if you want to make a leap that he was talking about Hillary's laptop. Didn't teh FBI already searched, investigated and came to the conclusion that there were no wrongdoing there either?

If we go with what your guy said then somehow the 33k deleted emails are on some laptop once owned by Hillary and the FBI missed it..for over a year?

It is much more sensible to think he meant Wiener's laptop.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Whose laptop is being combed through right now?

And if you want to make a leap that he was talking about Hillary's laptop. Didn't teh FBI already searched, investigated and came to the conclusion that there were no wrongdoing there either?

If we go with what your guy said then somehow the 33k deleted emails are on some laptop once owned by Hillary and the FBI missed it..for over a year?

It is much more sensible to think he meant Wiener's laptop.

Why are simple things so hard for you to grasp?

Of course we are talking about Weiner's laptop.

Here was your statement


Let's use the laptop of a pervert to hide our evil deeds because no one will think twice about looking in here.

How did you reach the conclusion that Clinton used Weiner's laptop to hide her evil deeds? Not a single person has ever said Clinton was using Weiner's laptop, nobody.

[boutons_deux]

"Not a single person has ever said Clinton was using Weiner's laptop, nobody"

... but innuendo is that Clinton is jailable because of HER info won Weiner's laptop.

[Reck]

Why are simple things so hard for you to grasp?

Of course we are talking about Weiner's laptop.

Here was your statement



How did you reach the conclusion that Clinton used Weiner's laptop to hide her evil deeds? Not a single person has ever said Clinton was using Weiner's laptop, nobody.

You're one stupid fuck, did you know that? You just repeated yourself twice in one post.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're one stupid fuck, did you know that? You just repeated yourself twice in one post.

That isn't an answer to my question. How did you reach the conclusion that Clinton used Weiner's laptop to hide her evil deeds?

If you realize how stupid your initial statement was just admit it and I'll drop it.

[boutons_deux]

Rudy Giuliani Confirms FBI Insiders Leaked Information To The Trump Campaign


Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he knew the FBI planned to review more emails (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation_us_58138552e4b0990edc30cb36) tied to Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton/) before a public announcement about the investigation last week, confirming that the agency leaked information to Donald Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/donald-trump/)’s presidential campaign

The former New York City mayor and Trump surrogate has recently dropped (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/as-trump-ally-rudy-giuliani-hints-at-ties-to-the-fbi.html) a series of hints that he knew in advance that the FBI planned to look at emails potentially connected to Clinton’s private server.

Giuliani has bragged about his close ties to the FBI for months, mentioning in interviews (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1608/11/nday.05.html) that “outraged FBI agents (http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/11/02/giuliani-case-is-clearer-against-clinton-foundation-comey-adviser-his-silence/)” have told him they’re frustrated by how the Clinton investigation was handled. And two days before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency was reviewing the newly uncovered emails, Giuliani teased that Trump’s campaign had “a couple of surprises left (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/25/giuliani_we_got_a_couple_of_surprises_left.html).”
“You’ll see, and I think it will be enormously effective,”

All of this has led to suspicion that someone in the FBI is leaking information to Giuliani and the Trump campaign.

“I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”

He also insisted his information comes from “former FBI agents.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-fbi-clinton-emails_us_581c9e3fe4b0e80b02c93d6b?utm_medium=emai l&utm_campaign=Rudy%20Giuliani%20Confirms%20The%20FB I%20Leaked%20Information%20To%20The%20Trump%20Camp aign&utm_content=Rudy%20Giuliani%20Confirms%20The%20FBI %20Leaked%20Information%20To%20The%20Trump%20Campa ign+CID_b3d77832126842dbd9ba1217e59372b7&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20More

So the FBI is totally corrupted, compromised, politicized.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Rudy Giuliani Confirms FBI Insiders Leaked Information To The Trump Campaign


Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he knew the FBI planned to review more emails (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation_us_58138552e4b0990edc30cb36) tied to Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton/) before a public announcement about the investigation last week, confirming that the agency leaked information to Donald Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/donald-trump/)’s presidential campaign

The former New York City mayor and Trump surrogate has recently dropped (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/as-trump-ally-rudy-giuliani-hints-at-ties-to-the-fbi.html) a series of hints that he knew in advance that the FBI planned to look at emails potentially connected to Clinton’s private server.

Giuliani has bragged about his close ties to the FBI for months, mentioning in interviews (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1608/11/nday.05.html) that “outraged FBI agents (http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/11/02/giuliani-case-is-clearer-against-clinton-foundation-comey-adviser-his-silence/)” have told him they’re frustrated by how the Clinton investigation was handled. And two days before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency was reviewing the newly uncovered emails, Giuliani teased that Trump’s campaign had “a couple of surprises left (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/25/giuliani_we_got_a_couple_of_surprises_left.html).”
“You’ll see, and I think it will be enormously effective,”

All of this has led to suspicion that someone in the FBI is leaking information to Giuliani and the Trump campaign.

“I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”

He also insisted his information comes from “former FBI agents.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-fbi-clinton-emails_us_581c9e3fe4b0e80b02c93d6b?utm_medium=emai l&utm_campaign=Rudy%20Giuliani%20Confirms%20The%20FB I%20Leaked%20Information%20To%20The%20Trump%20Camp aign&utm_content=Rudy%20Giuliani%20Confirms%20The%20FBI %20Leaked%20Information%20To%20The%20Trump%20Campa ign+CID_b3d77832126842dbd9ba1217e59372b7&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20More

So the FBI is totally corrupted, compromised, politicized.




Lynch meeting with Clinton on the tarmac days before the FBI's announcement. Kadzick using personal email to tell Clinton what DOJ was doing. DOJ granting 5 immunity deals when they could have subpoenaed or gotten warrants to seize evidence. DOJ allowing material witnesses to corroborate and be present when others were testifying. DOJ allowing a subject of the investigation to also act as legal representation for Clinton.




What are your thoughts on the DOJ?

[CosmicCowboy]

Rudy Giuliani Confirms FBI Insiders Leaked Information To The Trump Campaign


Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he knew the FBI planned to review more emails (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation_us_58138552e4b0990edc30cb36) tied to Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton/) before a public announcement about the investigation last week, confirming that the agency leaked information to Donald Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/donald-trump/)’s presidential campaign

The former New York City mayor and Trump surrogate has recently dropped (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/as-trump-ally-rudy-giuliani-hints-at-ties-to-the-fbi.html) a series of hints that he knew in advance that the FBI planned to look at emails potentially connected to Clinton’s private server.

Giuliani has bragged about his close ties to the FBI for months, mentioning in interviews (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1608/11/nday.05.html) that “outraged FBI agents (http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/11/02/giuliani-case-is-clearer-against-clinton-foundation-comey-adviser-his-silence/)” have told him they’re frustrated by how the Clinton investigation was handled. And two days before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency was reviewing the newly uncovered emails, Giuliani teased that Trump’s campaign had “a couple of surprises left (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/25/giuliani_we_got_a_couple_of_surprises_left.html).”
“You’ll see, and I think it will be enormously effective,”

All of this has led to suspicion that someone in the FBI is leaking information to Giuliani and the Trump campaign.

“I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”

He also insisted his information comes from “former FBI agents.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-fbi-clinton-emails_us_581c9e3fe4b0e80b02c93d6b?utm_medium=emai l&utm_campaign=Rudy%20Giuliani%20Confirms%20The%20FB I%20Leaked%20Information%20To%20The%20Trump%20Camp aign&utm_content=Rudy%20Giuliani%20Confirms%20The%20FBI %20Leaked%20Information%20To%20The%20Trump%20Campa ign+CID_b3d77832126842dbd9ba1217e59372b7&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20More

So the FBI is totally corrupted, compromised, politicized.




Meh. You stupidly forget the NYPD is involved as well.

[boutons_deux]

Meh. You stupidly forget the NYPD is involved as well.

You, my little bitch, stupidly think I give a shit.

Of course, NYPD is totally corrupt

[Spurminator]

Yeah, I didn't "read" the video. But I did watch it. :lol

God, you're a sanctimonious ass.

So you watched it and came to the conclusion that this was a discussion of how the media is covering up the Wikileaks emails.

[DMC]

I never said so. I happen to think Hilary's email hairball is a fairly big deal and discloses incompetence and dire lack of judgment at a minimum, and I've consistently said so.

Unfortunately for the country and the GOP, it's overshadowed by the GOP's truly horrendous nominee and the fact that the GOP and its media megaphones shot their wad and their credibility on Benghazi.

Observation bias aside, a high ranking public official has proven that she cannot be trusted with national security. She doesn't remember what the "C" stands for even though she's the Sec of State for fucks sake. She's running a flea market with the power of public office, and she's about to get a mega-store.

Somehow you think having a pussy grabber with a superiority complex is worse.

You'll get what you deserve.

[DMC]

hillary probably deleted her crap because she was hiding shit. if everything trump did was fully within the law as he brags about, why is he hiding it? just trolling?

If it wasn't, all that's needed is an audit. That's what audits are for.

He's a private citizen, isn't required to show tax returns.

Guilty until proven innocent?

"hiding shit" is a real soft angle for selling national secrets and pay to play with Sec of State. Trump's "hiding shit" could be business dealings that are legal but questionable on a public stage. Hillary's are simply illegal, period.

[boutons_deux]

"pussy grabber with a superiority complex is worse"

Trash is seriously mentally disordered, emotionally stunted, and emotionally unstable, totally ignorant of government and the law, local, national, international. But, he what's 40% of ignorant motherfucking Americans want for President.

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[Reck]

Meh. You stupidly forget the NYPD is involved as well.

Why would teh NYPD be involved? They have nothing to do with the server investigation..

That shit that's going around with the FBI working with anonymous, the NSA and the NYPD is just a conspiracy theory borned out of 4chan.

[DMC]

How can you possibly know that to the certainty of a declaration? Choosing to believe it does not actually make it so. And until we see his tax returns, nobody who hasn't seen those returns has any basis to know what happened other than a choice to believe it or disbelieve it.

Further, the precedent is now set, and there's a real risk that as time goes on, we will continue to know less and less about our Presidential candidates, which seems both counterproductive and dangerous.
Until you know otherwise, it's proper to assume innocence. We do know what Marc Rich did.

People who have held high public office should not be judged by the same light as someone who owns a private business. One is entrusted with our national secrets and the lives of our soldiers. The other is just wealthy. What Hillary proved during her time in office was that she has no business anywhere near public office. Though Donald reeks of being corrupt as well, you're simply assuming he is because he's a prick, and a rich one. We know, without a doubt, that Hillary is corrupt. You're just trying to level, and it's not going to work. Those who are proven guilty are not on the same level with those you simply suspect.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why would teh NYPD be involved? They have nothing to do with the server investigation..

That shit that's going around with the FBI working with anonymous, the NSA and the NYPD is just a conspiracy theory borned out of 4chan.

:lmao

your stupid is showing again.


the FBI and the New York Police Department have opened preliminary investigations of allegations that the former New York Democratic congressman exchanged sexually explicit text messages with a purportedly underage girl.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/first-on-cnn-us-attorney-investigating-weiner-sexting-allegations/

It's on Weiners laptop, dumbass. That's how they found the emails.

[FromWayDowntown]

Until you know otherwise, it's proper to assume innocence. We do know what Marc Rich did.

Right, which is why (in the absence of any proof of criminal culpability - a fact demonstrated by the complete lack of any further legal action after the seriatim investigations that define the Republican approach to the Clintons) we all just simply presume that Hillary Clinton is innocent. Of course.


People who have held high public office should not be judged by the same light as someone who owns a private business. One is entrusted with our national secrets and the lives of our soldiers. The other is just wealthy. What Hillary proved during her time in office was that she has no business anywhere near public office. Though Donald reeks of being corrupt as well, you're simply assuming he is because he's a prick, and a rich one. We know, without a doubt, that Hillary is corrupt. You're just trying to level, and it's not going to work. Those who are proven guilty are not on the same level with those you simply suspect.

So when rich guys decide to try to become people entrusted with national secrets and the lives of our soldiers, we have no actual right to know what their past might be?

I actually think that if Congress wanted to do something to benefit the American public in the aftermath of this campaign, one useful thing would be to codify a consistent set of disclosures to be made by any candidate who elects to enter a general election.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why would teh NYPD be involved? They have nothing to do with the server investigation..

That shit that's going around with the FBI working with anonymous, the NSA and the NYPD is just a conspiracy theory borned out of 4chan.

You ask some seriously stupid questions and could save some face by googling before you post here.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lmao

your stupid is showing again.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/first-on-cnn-us-attorney-investigating-weiner-sexting-allegations/

It's on Weiners laptop, dumbass. That's how they found the emails.

Incoming......but why would Hillary hide her evil deeds on Weiner's laptop? :lol

[Reck]

:lmao

your stupid is showing again.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/first-on-cnn-us-attorney-investigating-weiner-sexting-allegations/

It's on Weiners laptop, dumbass. That's how they found the emails.

You calling anyone stupid and dumb. LOL cosmicgaylord.

Maybe it'll dawn on you one day that these are two seperate investigations being led by two seperate entities.

[CosmicCowboy]

You calling anyone stupid and dumb. LOL cosmicgaylord.

Maybe it'll dawn on you one day that these are two seperate investigations being led by two seperate entities.

FWIW dummy, it's spelled separate.

And NYPD has an equal shot at the laptops contents.

[CosmicCowboy]

I confess, I hope the laptop has the 33,000 deleted emails on it so the FBI can put that shit to rest one way or the other.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12Z2SL

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 donations from foreign governments.

[Winehole23]

Observation bias aside, a high ranking public official has proven that she cannot be trusted with national security. She doesn't remember what the "C" stands for even though she's the Sec of State for fucks sake. She's running a flea market with the power of public office, and she's about to get a mega-store.

Somehow you think having a pussy grabber with a superiority complex is worse. so clearly worse there could never be any doubt about it.

we'll get what deserve and what's probably for the best: divided government.

[Winehole23]

not because he's a pussy grabber, but because he's ignorant, temperamentally unfit and a manifest danger to constitutional order.

[Winehole23]

offering to investigate and throw your political opponents in jail is worthy of guys like Putin and Erdogan.

[Winehole23]

Trump's irascibility and petty vindictiveness should disqualify him, period. he can't be trusted with power.

[Pelicans78]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12Z2SL

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 donations from foreign governments.

It never ends for her. She can't help himself.

[Pelicans78]

Trump's irascibility and petty vindictiveness should disqualify him, period. he can't be trusted with power.

Neither can she. Anyone with that level of corruption and incompetence will be a disaster as well. She's an embarrassment to this country and has no business running for president or any other office in this country. The party should have never gone all in for such a disaster of a candidate.

[DMC]

so clearly worse there could never be any doubt about it.

we'll get what deserve and what's probably for the best: divided government.

Because you say so.

[Winehole23]

Fits you too.

[Winehole23]

Neither can she. Anyone with that level of corruption and incompetence will be a disaster as well. She's an embarrassment to this country and has no business running for president or any other office in this country. The party should have never gone all in for such a disaster of a candidate.Both parties shit the bed and we all have to live with the choices they made. There are strong disqualifications on both sides. Determining which disqualifications are more powerful is more or less argumentative.

[Winehole23]

I think Trump can't hack it temperamentally and is totally ignorant about policy and government. Lacking the skills and the temperament for the job trumps HRC's known screwups for me.

I'm voting against Trump, but I don't think I can bring myself to vote for HRC.

[DMC]

Right, which is why (in the absence of any proof of criminal culpability - a fact demonstrated by the complete lack of any further legal action after the seriatim investigations that define the Republican approach to the Clintons) we all just simply presume that Hillary Clinton is innocent. Of course.



So when rich guys decide to try to become people entrusted with national secrets and the lives of our soldiers, we have no actual right to know what their past might be?

No. You have the right to know what they allow you to know, and you vote accordingly. There's no right as far as another person's private information is concerned. You simply withhold your vote from that person if you don't have confidence because they refuse to be more open. It's the same in everyday life. You must show an ID to pass the security checkpoint in an airport, but you don't have to show ID. You can just decide to not go through the checkpoint. Donald knows his tax return would not make a difference in how partisan folks vote. He knows he'll likely return to the private sector, so he chooses to keep his personal information personal. If he's breaking any laws, the IRS is right there, and Hillary and her husband have been in power for about as long as I can recall, so they could have easily done something about it when they were rubbing elbows with him.


I actually think that if Congress wanted to do something to benefit the American public in the aftermath of this campaign, one useful thing would be to codify a consistent set of disclosures to be made by any candidate who elects to enter a general election.
I disagree. There can be background investigations done on these people, and there will always be, but the people always have the right to not vote for the person who withholds information. If full disclosure is so important, the elections will reveal it. However it's not surprising that you say such a thing. I see more and more calls for government control over our lives every day, mostly from the left. It's as if the left mindset is "I am trustworthy, but others need to be forced by law". This, coupled with calls for federal incentives for desired personal behavior are two of the biggest turnoffs of the left.

[Winehole23]

I'll probably write in Bernie Sanders: even though I agree with him about only halfway, he was the best candidate in this cycle

[DMC]

I'll probably write in Bernie Sanders: even though I agree with him about only halfway, he was the best candidate in this cycle

We agree here. He allowed himself to be screwed out of this election. For that I cannot write him in. What kind of leader would sit idly by while someone else backdoors them, then turn their support to that person? A sycophant.

[Winehole23]

Or, he thinks it matters which side wins.

But sure, why not.

[Winehole23]

As I recall, Sanders wasn't totally idle. He sued the DNC and pilloried them publicly for putting their thumb on the scale.

[boutons_deux]

A brief history of the FBI’s meddling in US politics
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/5/13533838/history-fbi-meddling-politics-comey

[Reck]

Sanders, along with Warren will be a stirring present in a Hillary Clinton presidency. Let's not kid ourselves.

Those two will held her accountable to what she has promised so far.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Sanders, along with Warren will be a stirring present in a Hillary Clinton presidency. Let's not kid ourselves.

Those two will held her accountable to what she has promised so far. like that rollover Sanders will ever be able to hold Clinton accountable for anything :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hillary Clinton sent Chelsea info now deemed classifiedBy JOSH GERSTEIN (http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein) and NOLAN D. MCCASKILL (http://www.politico.com/staff/nolan-d-mccaskill)
11/04/16 05:20 PM EDT
Updated 11/04/16 05:20 PM EDT


Hillary Clinton sent her daughter Chelsea an email message that contains information the State Department now deems classified, a new batch of messages released by State Friday shows.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-emails-released-election-230750#ixzz4P9qHe1My
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

[boutons_deux]

"now classified" :lol

how about then? :lol

all y'all Hillary haters got nothing, really no fucking thing. Gonna be hilarious watching y'all eat shit Tue night!

[TheSanityAnnex]

"now classified" :lol

how about then? :lol

all y'all Hillary haters got nothing, really no fucking thing. Gonna be hilarious watching y'all eat shit Tue night!

Illegal then too.

The original pair of messages from Froman were given the lowest classification stamp, "Confidential," about a year ago when they were released (https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_OctWeb/006/DOC_0C05766264/C05766264.pdf). Notations indicate the information was classified because it came from a foreign government or pertained to diplomatic exchanges.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-emails-released-election-230750#ixzz4P9tqwSX5
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

[Reck]

Hillary, please stick to good, old fashion letters from now on.

[boutons_deux]

Illegal then too.

The original pair of messages from Froman were given the lowest classification stamp, "Confidential," about a year ago when they were released (https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_OctWeb/006/DOC_0C05766264/C05766264.pdf). Notations indicate the information was classified because it came from a foreign government or pertained to diplomatic exchanges.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-emails-released-election-230750#ixzz4P9tqwSX5
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

TWO FUCKING MESSAGES! to that RUSSIAN mole Chelsea Clinton! :lol

How many is messages is that now will put Hillary in Prison? :lol

Benghazi! :lol

Vince Foster!:lol

Whitewater! :lol

etc, etc :lol

[pgardn]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/fbi-donald-trump-base-230755

Just staying impartial...

Article makes it appear that Comey's job is impossible.

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b6is7/no_bs_i_found_it_this_is_the_clinton_foundation/

[Th'Pusher]

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b6is7/no_bs_i_found_it_this_is_the_clinton_foundation/

Glad you took spurminator's advice and just started linking directly to /r/TheDonald

[Reck]

Glad you took spurminator's advice and just started linking directly to /r/TheDonald

How did I know this was a Trump's supporting site...I read up to..lock her up. :lol

[Winehole23]

Those documents suggested that the Republican nominee could have avoided paying taxes on as much as $916 million in income. The question was how he could do so legally. Experts had put forward a range of intricate theories (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trumps-use-of-debts-and-tax-laws-spurs-concerns-about-his-methods/2016/10/05/f003423e-8b18-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html), and the new documents disclosed by the Times on Monday point to one explanation for how Trump sheltered the bulk of that money.

It appears Trump gave his creditors shares of his failing businesses to avoid taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars they granted him in debt relief, a practice that has since been explicitly outlawed, the Times explained.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/01/a-big-dirty-secret-from-donald-trumps-tax-returns-has-been-exposed/?tid=pm_business_pop_b

[Winehole23]

If the bank forgives the loan, however, then the amount that is forgiven does count as income under federal law. A canceled debt is equivalent to a gift from the bank, and it is subject to income taxes.


That is what happened to Trump. When the casino and hotel investments failed catastrophically, Trump's businesses declared bankruptcy, and his creditors were forced to forgive much of the debt.


“He borrowed other people's money and spent it in spectacular fashion,” Rosenthal said.


From the point of view of Trump's income, it all came out in the wash. He had lost a lot of money, but he had also persuaded the banks to write down what he owed them — a gift that largely wiped out his losses.


Trump then claimed on tax returns that he had lost the money, but he did not acknowledge the income in the form of canceled debts. He likely did not have to pay taxes on that money — which totaled at least $425 million, Rosenthal estimates based on his review of the documents obtained by the Times.


To avoid taxes on the income from his canceled debts, Trump used what experts described as a dubious legal argument, according to the account provided by the Times.


First, in exchange for writing down his debts, he gave the creditors shares of the partnerships through which he controlled the failing hotel and casinos. Then he essentially argued that the lenders had not done him a favor at all, because they had simply exchanged one asset for another.


The asset the banks gave up was real money Trump owed them. What they got, on the other hand, were shares in failing properties. Trump claimed that he and his borrowers were square.

[Th'Pusher]

^ that makes him smart

[Winehole23]

admitted it during the debate:


"Did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years?" moderator Anderson Cooper asked him.

"Of course I do," Trump replied (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/everything-that-was-said-at-the-second-donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-debate-highlighted/?tid=a_inl). "Of course I do, and so do all of her donors, or most of her donors."

[Winehole23]

dubious legality:


Lawyers for Willkie Farr & Gallagher, the firm Trump retained to provide an opinion on the strategy, wrote that if the authorities took Trump to court, his odds of winning would be no better than a coin flip.


“We are unable to provide legal assurance that the probabilities are more likely than not that such positions will be upheld if litigated,” they wrote

[Winehole23]

in an unrelated case, Trump destroyed records too:


Finally, under subpoena, Trump appeared for a short deposition. When asked about the missing documents, he made a shocking admission: The Trumps had been destroying their corporate records for the previous six months and had no document-retention program. They had conducted no inspections to determine which files might have been sought in the discovery requests or might otherwise be related to the case. Instead, in order to “save space,” Trump testified, officials with his company had been tossing documents into the shredder and garbage.http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html

[Winehole23]

This review of Trump’s many decades of abusing the judicial system, ignoring judges, disregarding rules, destroying documents and lying about it is not simply a sordid history lesson. Rather, it helps explain his behavior since he declared his candidacy. He promised to turn over his tax returns and his health records—just as he promised to comply with document discovery requirements in so many lawsuits—then reneged. As a result, he has left a sparse evidentiary trail that can be used to assess his wealth, his qualifications for the presidency or even his fitness. Should voters choose him to be the next U.S. president, he will enter the Oval Office as a mystery, a man who has repeatedly flouted the rules. He has solemnly told the country to trust him while refusing to produce any records to prove whether he speaks the truth or has utter contempt for it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hillary, please stick to good, old fashion letters from now on.

She should do like the old school Mafia: nothing in writing or on the phone. Everything was done face to face and in code.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.ar15.com/images/2008skins/icons/doubleArrowRight.png (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1927692&r=&qte=1#i)A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's campaign said Sunday that if Wikileaks were to publish a bombshell email in the final two days of the election, it would likely not be authentic.

"Friends, please remember that if you see a whopper of a Wikileaks in next two days - it's probably a fake," tweeted Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign.


http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-wikileaks-jennifer-palmieri-whopper-emails-2016-11

[Winehole23]

has the leaked material been authenticated so far?

[CosmicCowboy]

has the leaked material been authenticated so far?

are you taking the position it's faked?

[DMC]

As I recall, Sanders wasn't totally idle. He sued the DNC and pilloried them publicly for putting their thumb on the scale.

Then he gave her his endorsement.

[Winehole23]

are you taking the position it's faked?no. just wondering who's vetted the leaks for authenticity and accuracy, or how that would be determined at all.

whose word is being taken that all the leaked materials are legit?

[Winehole23]

Then he gave her his endorsement.He thinks it makes a difference who wins. Hard to argue with that, whichever way you come down.

[DMC]

He thinks it makes a difference who wins. Hard to argue with that, whichever way you come down.

Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my friend. Me and my friend against my enemy.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

If this turns out to be true :wow

http://i.imgur.com/Uca9cdk.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Then he gave her his endorsement.

He was, is 100% ALL STOP TRUMP, which means voting for Hillary, does not mean abstaining or no voting.

[Spurminator]

795358997083586560

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

[Reck]

795358997083586560

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Just saw this. Sad

A big nothing like I had suspected.

[Spurminator]

I'm not seeing a flood of Republicans tweeting out today's Comey letter. I guess they're all watching football?

[Reck]

TheSanityAnnex Your thoughts?

[boutons_deux]

795358997083586560

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

how's that shit taste, Shafted?

[Adam Lambert]

lol hannityannex

[xrayzebra]

Boutons: If Reid has the that info, he should divulge it.

You mean like he did with Romneys "didn't pay any taxes".....

[CosmicCowboy]

One thing that is rather curious is how they could vet hundreds of thousands of emails in a week, yet with the same tools at their disposal it took them a year and a half to get through 35,000.

[Warlord23]

One thing that is rather curious is how they could vet hundreds of thousands of emails in a week, yet with the same tools at their disposal it took them a year and a half to get through 35,000.

As I said earlier,
1. Out of the 650,000 emails, the ones from or to Shillary might have been a few hundred
2. Most or all could have been duplicates of ones they already have, which can be matched easily

Snowden said as much earlier today:

795435387321655296

[Winehole23]

It may take five years for the State Department and other government agencies to vet, redact and release the remaining messages recovered from Clinton’s private e-mail server as well as those found more recently on a laptop used by a top aide, based on the pace proposed by Justice Department lawyer Lisa Olson.http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-07/clinton-e-mail-releases-threaten-to-drag-on-past-2020-election

[TheSanityAnnex]

For years, Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/06/obamas-latest-attempt-to-save-clinton-from-indictment/)partisans have blindly defended every criticism of the Clinton Foundation by pointing to the good work the charity has done. But the WikiLeaks (http://observer.com/2016/08/dems-claim-next-wikileaks-release-will-include-fabricated-content/) emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/09/former-democratic-congressional-candidate-says-hillary-stole-nevada/)‘s campaign chair, have confirmed nearly every criticism of the Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/09/scold-scare-insult-intimidate-clintons-millennial-outreach-flops/)Foundation, debunking the claim that it is solely a philanthropic endeavor run by the Clintons (http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-and-their-associates/).


Jeff Stein, a writer at the generally pro-Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/09/dnc-claims-sanders-supporters-knew-they-favored-hillary-clinton/) Vox, rescinded (https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/795329368541249536) previous claims he made that the Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/10/exclusive-wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-teaser-exposes-pay-to-play-and-financial-data/) Foundation (http://observer.com/2016/08/latest-email-leaks-keep-exposing-clinton-foundation-corruption/) wasn’t used to personally enrich the family’s wealth after WikiLeaks released an email (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046) revealing Chelsea Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/)used the foundation (http://observer.com/2016/07/up-next-for-the-fbi-clinton-foundation-corruption/) to direct investors to her husband’s hedge fund and treated Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/09/paul-krugmans-latest-clinton-defense-reaches-new-low/) Foundation funds as a personal bank account.


“His raising money for his own fund hasn’t been going well and he has cvc making some calls for him to get mtgs with some clinton people,” Teneo president Doug Band, who has some close ties with the foundation, wrote in a January 2012 email (https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51875) to Podesta and other Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/09/breaking-guccifer-2-0-releases-more-dnc-docs-exposing-more-corruption/) staff. “Marc has invited several potential investors and a few current business ones to the poker night. I assume all are contributing to the foundation, which of course isn’t the point. What is the point is that he is doing precisely what he accused me of doing as the entire plan of his has been to use this for his business which he is.”


Previously-released emails have revealed a pay-to-play exchange between the government of Morocco and then-Secretary of State Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/08/clintons-former-employer-lafarge-faces-allegations-of-funding-isis/). Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk (http://observer.com/2016/11/wikileaks-clintons-sell-political-favors-to-clinton-foundation-donors/)used his prolific donations to the Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-exposes-clintons-lgbt-support-as-scripted-political-expediency/) Foundation to solicit political favors.
“There is enough clarity for The Economist in an October 1 article (“Bill (http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-details-bill-clinton-maneuver-to-meet-loretta-lynch/) and Hillary Inc.”) to report that only 68 percent of the funds flowing through the foundation go to programs—the work,” wrote Patrick Moynihan, a Catholic Deacon, president of the Haitian Project, and a prominent critic of the Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/01/bill-clinton-bombs-in-his-first-solo-speech-in-new-hampshire/) Foundation, for the Providence Journal. (http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20161105/patrick-moynihan-clintons-bamboozle-public-about-charities) “That 68 percent is deplorably lower than the 80 percent minimum threshold for respectable nonprofits.”

The FBI (http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/) recently cleared Hillary Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/) a second time in the investigation of her private email server (http://observer.com/2016/05/hillary-has-lost-the-war-on-honesty/), after Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/11/dave-chappelle-defends-trump-rips-clinton-shes-not-right-and-we-all-know-it/) backers hysterically accused FBI Director James Comey (http://observer.com/2016/11/hillarys-hubris-weiners-porn-and-comeys-conscience/) of being a pro-Putin (http://observer.com/2016/06/vladimir-putin-has-everything-he-needs-to-blackmail-hillary-clinton/) partisan for opening not one but two investigations into the server. But WikiLeaks (http://observer.com/2016/09/wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-obama-sold-off-public-offices-to-donors/) emails have revealed the private email server issue was a serious concern among Clinton staff rather than the GOP conspiracy the Democratic establishment’s extensive damage control has attempted to transmogrify it into.


“At least we now know why Cheryl didn’t want her to run,” Podesta wrote (https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51094) to Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/) loyalist Neera Tanden, after Tanden said former Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/11/this-election-has-disgraced-the-entire-profession-of-journalism/) aide Cheryl Mills—who was granted (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/mills-immunity-228580) immunity by the Department of Justice—be drawn and quartered for suggesting to Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/03/no-shame-for-bill-and-hillary-entitlement-has-no-boundaries/) that she use a private email server (http://observer.com/2016/09/fbi-data-dump-shows-clinton-is-criminal-and-clueless/). The exchange implies that the private email server used by Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/06/guccifer-2-0-leak-reveals-how-dnc-rigged-primaries-for-clinton/) might have served as a political liability to the extent that the criminal liability for the server could be placed on Mills if needed.


Recent leaks have exposed the Clinton Foundation as the fraudulent organization its critics have claimed it is for years. They have also reaffirmed again and again the criminal (http://observer.com/2016/09/dont-let-comey-put-a-criminal-in-the-white-house/) and morally reprehensible conduct involved in Clinton’s (http://observer.com/2016/09/new-guccifer-2-0-dccc-coordinated-with-clinton-campaign-in-2015/) secret server (http://observer.com/2016/05/game-over-emailgate-just-crippled-the-clinton-express/).
The Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/09/clinton-campaign-manager-has-gary-johnson-like-meltdown-on-msnbc/) campaign is already prepping more damage control for embarrassing and damaging WikiLeaks (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-donna-brazile-rigged-debate-gave-clinton-more-questions/) releases leading up to Election Day. Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/10/clinton-journalist-has-meltdown-after-his-russian-conspiracy-theory-is-debunked/) campaign communication director Jennifer Palmieri tweeted (https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/795264366547533824) on November 6 that any upcoming major WikiLeaks (http://observer.com/2016/10/rigged-debates-wikileaks-emails-confirm-media-in-clintons-pocket/) revelations will probably be fake, though not one single email has yet to be proven so by Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/10/dc-leaks-exposes-clinton-insiders-elitist-and-embarrassing-emails/) partisans.

http://observer.com/2016/11/latest-wikileaks-reveals-clinton-critics-were-right-all-along/

[Axl Rose]

Oh I forgot Michigan. She's up big time there as well.
Lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Looking forward to an actual investigation starting on this bitch.

[baseline bum]

Looking forward to an actual investigation starting on this bitch.

Probably not happening. Even with the election over I stayed up for Trump's speech, hoping he'd go after her, and all he did was compliment Clinton.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Probably not happening. Even with the election over I stayed up for Trump's speech, hoping he'd go after her, and all he did was compliment Clinton.

Last night wasn't the night to go after her, would have looked really bad for him to do so. And I don't think we'll hear anything until he's in office and cleans out the corrupt DOJ. The FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation is still active, you can bet they aren't going to drop it.

[baseline bum]

Last night wasn't the night to go after her, would have looked really bad for him to do so. And I don't think we'll hear anything until he's in office and cleans out the corrupt DOJ. The FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation is still active, you can bet they aren't going to drop it.

It'll be one in a long list of broken promises from Trump.

[florige]

It'll be one in a long list of broken promises from Trump.



He had better because that was one of his main talking points.

[Aztecfan03]

He had better because that was one of his main talking points.

If you believed anything that came out of his mouth, I have oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It'll be one in a long list of broken promises from Trump.

You truly think he'll tell the FBI to stand down? And even if he did you think they'd listen? They didn't stand down when Obama/DOJ pressured them.

[baseline bum]

If you believed anything that came out of his mouth, I have oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you.

Pretty much this. Not that I believed anything that came out of her whore mouth either.

[baseline bum]

You truly think he'll tell the FBI to stand down? And even if he did you think they'd listen? They didn't stand down when Obama/DOJ pressured them.

I bet he'd pardon her in the worst case.

[florige]

If you believed anything that came out of his mouth, I have oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you.

I personally didn't but apparently over half the country did.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I bet he'd pardon her in the worst case.

I'd offer you an actual bet on that but you're good people and I don't want to see you leave

[baseline bum]

I'd offer you an actual bet on that but you're good people and I don't want to see you leave

Yeah I don't do ELE bets. :lol

But Trump and Clinton were friends for years. He'd make up some bullshit about American unity and being compassionate and his base would swallow it whole just like the evangelicals did when they just stopped caring about character in their candidates in the last month.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yeah I don't do ELE bets. :lol

But Trump and Clinton were friends for years. He'd make up some bullshit about American unity and being compassionate and his base would swallow it whole just like the evangelicals did when they just stopped caring about character in their candidates in the last month.

I fully believe he'll follow through. My only worry is the FBI coming out with a recommendation before he's in office and Obama being able to pardon the bitch.

[spurraider21]

I fully believe he'll follow through. My only worry is the FBI coming out with a recommendation before he's in office and Obama being able to pardon the bitch.nixon was pardoned before being indicted. obama could do that anyway. ford gave him an unconditional pardon

[TheSanityAnnex]

nixon was pardoned before being indicted. obama could do that anyway. ford gave him an unconditional pardon

True. But I don't think Obama wants to tarnish his legacy with a move like that. Plus he'd also have to give the entire foundation a blanket pardon, I don't think there is any way he does that.

[Chris]

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p417x417/15037272_1325201257512780_6418867739226907372_n.jp g?oh=50750fa981e0dc4fd0e473b6369da4a3&oe=58CFAB9A

[Chris]

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14947441_10211199893016932_6798065331307367189_n.j pg?oh=d798db5a7c05b8a3485744f8ec423c41&oe=58D115C2

[baseline bum]

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14947441_10211199893016932_6798065331307367189_n.j pg?oh=d798db5a7c05b8a3485744f8ec423c41&oe=58D115C2

:lmao

[Pelicans78]

I seriously doubt Trump will go after her. He's got bigger things to worry about than prosecuting her.

[CosmicCowboy]

She's probably not going to jail. If they haven't found a smoking gun on pay to play by now I doubt they find one. If they find shit on the Clinton Foundation they probably will just fine them, make them pay back taxes, and revoke their 501c.

[Chillen]

Trump's definitely got bigger problems now than locking up corrupt Hillary, he has to prepare and get ready to run this great nation and do it well. Not sure about the FBI, they could choose to go after her. It remains to be seen what happens or what Trump does, but one things sure America spoke and this criminal won't have a chance to run our great nation into the ground. Unity is important right now for both republicans, independents and democrats, can't have a divided nation any longer. Trump has to bring this country together!

[TheSanityAnnex]

She's probably not going to jail. If they haven't found a smoking gun on pay to play by now I doubt they find one. If they find shit on the Clinton Foundation they probably will just fine them, make them pay back taxes, and revoke their 501c.
They already had enough. FBI took it to the DOJ and was shot down.

You guys downplay it all you want, I'll continue to follow it closely and keep you updated :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Trump administration could mean new life for Clinton Foundation probe

Washington (CNN)The FBI has spent more than a year looking into the Clinton Foundation without getting beyond the starting gates. That could soon change.

Investigators at the FBI's New York office, who unsuccessfully argued for months that they should be allowed to open a full-blown investigation of the foundation, could find a more friendly audience in a Donald Trump administration Justice Department.





The President-elect railed during the closing weeks of the campaign against the relationship between foundation donors and Hillary Clinton's work in government as "corrupt."

He promised there would more investigations of the Clintons if he were elected.

Soon, top officials he appoints at the Justice Department will have the power make that happen.





And the FBI investigators may have more ammunition to make their case with stolen emails from Clinton aides released in recent weeks by WikiLeaks.
The emails showed internal fights over the foundation between Chelsea Clinton and a top aide to her father, Doug Band, who helped run the foundation. Chelsea Clinton, according to the emails, was concerned about possible conflicts of interest and problems related to Bill Clinton's paid speech-making business, dubbed "Bill Clinton Inc." The dispute prompted the foundation to conduct an internal audit of its activities. Band hit back at Chelsea Clinton, according to the emails, suggesting she used the foundation to pay for her wedding.


Rudy Giuliani, considered a contender for attorney general or other top cabinet post, according to people familiar with Trump transition planning, said Thursday that the new president will have to make a decision on what to do about his promises to hire a special prosecutor to investigate matters related to Clinton.
"It's been a tradition in our politics to put things behind us," Giuliani said on CNN's "New Day." "On the other hand, you have to look at how bad was it? Because suppose somebody comes along a year from now and is alleged to have stolen $50,000 from a charity -- and (Clinton) was never investigated for hundreds of millions."

Messages left with the Clinton Foundation seeking comment were not returned.

Career prosecutors at the Justice Department's criminal division and the public integrity section, as well as lawyers at the FBI, reviewed the requests earlier this year from FBI investigators to launch a full probe of the Clinton Foundation, according to law enforcement officials briefed on the discussions. The agents were told that they didn't have enough evidence to use more overt investigative methods, including seeking subpoenas, to open a full probe, the officials said. They were also told they could continue to gather information and revisit their requests if they found more evidence.


The genesis of the FBI efforts date, in part, to allegations published in the 2015 book "Clinton Cash" by conservative writer Peter Schweizer.
Agents were unhappy at being told they didn't have enough evidence, and that fed some of the tensions over Clinton-related matters inside the FBI in recent months between the New York field office and FBI headquarters, law enforcement officials say.
Trump repeatedly referred to the WikiLeaks emails -- in particular the issues raised by Band -- as proof that investigators should take a deeper look.
"Mr. Band called the arrangement unorthodox. The rest of us call it outright corrupt," Trump told an October campaign rally. "In fact, the Clinton Foundation even hired a law firm to find out if their pay to play scheme would jeopardize their charitable status with the IRS."


Trying to use the stolen emails released by WikiLeaks to try to build probable cause for further investigation could present legal hurdles for the FBI and the Justice Department.
At least some of the emails are labeled as "attorney-client privileged," meaning they have the legal protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client.


And then there's the fact the US government has declared that the emails were stolen by Russian intelligence in a cyber-hack of the email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Earlier this year, prosecutors in Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara's office used revelations from the Panama Papers, stolen and leaked legal documents from a law firm in that country that helped the rich create offshore financial shelters, as cause to issue subpoenas to individuals and firms named in the documents. Other lawyers at Justice Department headquarters debated whether the stolen materials could be used predicates for an investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/donald-trump-clinton-foundation/index.html

[z0sa]

Only way he goes after the Clintons is if things are not going well for him and he needs a good ol partisan distraction.

[boutons_deux]

Only way he goes after the Clintons is if things are not going well for him and he needs a good ol partisan distraction.

Chaffetz is padding his career by continuing the investigation. You People are always behind, misinformed, uninformed.

[baseline bum]

Trump's definitely got bigger problems now than locking up corrupt Hillary, he has to prepare and get ready to run this great nation and do it well. Not sure about the FBI, they could choose to go after her. It remains to be seen what happens or what Trump does, but one things sure America spoke and this criminal won't have a chance to run our great nation into the ground. Unity is important right now for both republicans, independents and democrats, can't have a divided nation any longer. Trump has to bring this country together!

Fuck that shit. No unity for 8 years and now Republicans expect it when they're in power? Time for the Democrats to filibuster every fucking thing the Republicans do since that has been established as the new normal since 2009.

[Winehole23]

Won't work. Senate will change the rules.

[Winehole23]

Mob rules will be the new rules.

GOP will hate it when it happens to them.

[Winehole23]

Norms count. Change is overrated.

[boutons_deux]

The Corruption Begins As VP Elect Mike Pence Goes To Court To Hide His Emails

By Jason Easley (http://www.politicususa.com/author/jasoneasley-2-2-2-2-2) on Mon, Nov 14th, 2016 at 1:35 pm

Vice President-elect Mike Pence has gone to court to make sure that the American people never get to see the emails that he wrote as governor of Indiana.

According to the Indianapolis Star (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/11/14/whats-mike-pence-hiding-his-emails/92839560/?hootPostID=7f787efc269d721568d2164754f1d9db), Mike Pence is going to court to argue that all of his emails should not be made public:

Now that the presidential campaign and most of the furor over Hillary Clinton’s email scandal are behind us, the Pence administration is going to court to argue for its own brand of email secrecy.

The administration is fighting to conceal the contents of an email sent to Gov. Mike Pence by a political ally.

That email is being sought by a prominent Democratic labor lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration.

The Mike Pence who is going to court to argue that his emails should remain a secret is the same guy who just spent months on the presidential campaign trail campaigning against Hillary Clinton because she used a private email server.

Clinton also did something that Pence is fighting not to do.

She released her emails to the public.

Hypocrisy will be the norm in the Trump/Pence administration, but the bigger question is

what is Mike Pence hiding?

Why doesn’t Pence want the American people to see his emails?

Both Trump and Pence favor increasing spying on American citizens, and

less transparency for themselves.

The incoming administration is destined to be the least transparent in US history.

They are also going to going to not respect the privacy of the American people.

Mike Pence claimed that Hillary Clinton’s emails were criminal, but he won’t let you see what’s in his emails.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/14/corruption-begins-vp-elect-mike-pence-court-hide-emails.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN148213
The search warrant materials' release sought by Randol Schoenberg, a Los Angeles-based lawyer, who in court papers said transparency was crucial given the potential influence the probe had on the election's outcome.
Sources close to the investigation have said the emails were discovered during an unrelated probe into former Democratic U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
In his order, Castel said he would allow the redaction of the identities of two unnamed individuals, one of whom is subject to an "ongoing criminal investigation."
But he said the "strong presumption of access attached to the search warrant and related materials is not overcome by any remaining privacy interest of Secretary Clinton."



wonder who and what this is concerning

[boutons_deux]

Did Bill Clinton’s Meeting With the Attorney General Force FBI to Issue Letter on Hillary’s Emails?

Had former President Bill Clinton not met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at a Phoenix airport, FBI Director James Comey “would never have felt obliged to go public” with information that the bureau was again looking at emails related to then-candidate Hillary Clinton, writes Michael Daly at The Daily Beast.

Bill Clinton blames Comey for Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 presidential election. “James Comey cost her the election,” he was quoted as telling a group of holiday shoppers in a Westchester County bookshop last week. But Clinton himself “bears considerably more responsibility” for his wife’s loss, Daly writes.

“His great fault is one he shares with his wife; they too often act as if rules that apply to you or me do not apply to them.” This time, the Clintonian fault made its decisive appearance when the former president met with Lynch on a tarmac at Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix, Ariz., in late June.

“One rule,” Daly explains, “holds that the husband of the target of a criminal investigation should not seek to meet privately with the law enforcement official ultimately in charge of that same investigation, no matter how innocent the talk.”

Daly argues that Clinton’s meeting with Lynch compelled Comey (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/21/bill-clinton-who-may-have-cost-hillary-the-election-passes-the-buck-to-james-comey.html) to make the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails more public than it needed to be.

Word of the encounter […] left Comey in an untenable situation. He had essentially come to the end of the investigation. The usual protocol called for him then to refer the findings to Department of Justice and let the prosecutors make the official determination.

What was anything but usual was that the top prosecutor had just been sitting on a plane with Bill Clinton. And for Lynch now to announce that Hillary Clinton had been cleared would call into question the integrity of all involved, including Comey and the FBI.

Had he been looking to make it easy on himself and hard on Hillary, Comey could have simply said that there was sufficient probable cause to proceed with a criminal case. He would have needed only to point to the nearly two dozen secret emails that had passed through her server.

But, in the words of one former FBI agent, Comey is “a unicorn in Washington; somebody who actually has ethics.” And he had come to the conclusion that while Hillary’s conduct had been egregiously careless, it lacked the intent necessary to support criminal charges.

Comey decided that he had to present the results directly to the public along with an explanation to dispel the appearance of impropriety as much as was possible. He did just that, making clear that he felt Hillary Clinton had been reckless and irresponsible, and that she had shown terrible judgment.


With the case reopened, Comey couldn’t rule out the possibility that one of the FBI agents involved wouldn’t tip off the press. Public speculation about a cover-up on Clinton’s behalf would ensue, so “Comey apparently decided that the only thing for him to do was announce that the investigation had been reopened the very way that he had earlier announced that it had been closed.” ...

The result was the letter a fortnight before the election that Bill Clinton now blames for his wife’s defeat. He is right to say that Comey’s subsequent letter clearing Hillary Clinton on the Sunday before Election Day was too late to undo the damage.
But Bill Clinton fails to note that he himself is the one who made the initial letter—and therefore the others—necessary.

Comey would never have felt obliged to go public in the first place had the great man with the great fault not decided that he was above a rule such as should have kept him from striding across the tarmac and boarding Lynch’s plane.

“She got in trouble in the first place because she felt that the rules did not apply to her. She might still have won had her husband not felt the same.”



http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/who_should_bill_clinton_blame_for_hillarys_loss_hi mself_20161221?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

The Clintons thought the "rules" didn't apply to them? :lol

Get ready for LAWLESS Don The Con and band of Merrily Corrupted criminals

[boutons_deux]

The attorney general could have ordered FBI Director James Comey not to send his bombshell letter on Clinton emails. Here’s why she didn’t.

Aides at Justice and the FBI — located in offices directly across the street from each other on Pennsylvania Avenue — began exchanging increasingly tense and heated phone calls, nearly a half-dozen throughout the afternoon and evening of Oct. 27 and into the next morning.

Justice officials laid out a number of arguments against releasing the letter. It violated two long-standing policies. Never publicly discuss an ongoing investigation. And never take an action affecting a candidate for office close to Election Day. Besides, they said, the FBI did not know yet what was in the emails or if they had anything to do with the Clinton case.

Remarkably, the country’s two top law enforcement officials never spoke.

As Comey’s boss, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch could have given the FBI director an order to not send the letter.

But Lynch and her advisers feared that Comey would not listen.

He seemed to feel strongly about updating Congress on his sworn testimony about the Clinton investigation. Instead, they tried to relay their concerns through the Justice official whom the FBI had called.

An examination of how a single letter from the FBI became a political bombshell reveals that it was the result of two law enforcement leaders failing over months to navigate the unusually ugly politics of 2016.

Having a presidential candidate under active criminal investigation was extraordinary.

But Comey and Lynch repeatedly underestimated how much their actions would reverberate in a closely contested presidential race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-attorney-general-could-have-ordered-fbi-director-james-comey-not-to-send-his-bombshell-letter-on-clinton-emails-heres-why-she-didnt/2016/12/21/7824d00a-c5fd-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.29682c483054&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1

iow, Repug 25 years of harassment and witch hunting paid off with Trash in the WH and establishment Repugs positioned to fuck over Trash's voters, and the 95%.

They are clearly encouraged to continue their nastiness with even more vigor.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Will Pagliano rat out Hillary or fall on the sword?

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-02-16-JEC-to-Sessions-DOJ-Criminal-Referral-on-Contempt.pdf

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions today asking Sessions to consider convening a grand jury or bringing charges against Hillary Clinton’s former IT guy, Bryan Pagliano. Pagliano was subpoenaed to testify before the committee last year but refused to appear on two occasions. After the second refusal, the Oversight Committee voted to hold Pagliano in contempt. Chaffetz’ letter to AG Sessions reads in part, “Because Pagliano’s job functions included supporting mobile computing issues across the Department, he was uniquely positioned to answer questions regarding State Department policies and practices for preserving records, as well as the technological procedures utilized to do so.”

The letter concludes, “In light of Pagliano’s contumacious conduct in refusing to testify, the Department should bring the matter before a grand jury for its action or file an information charging Pagliano with violating 2 U.S.C. § 192.” In a statement released by the committee, Chaffetz says, “The authority to compel witnesses is integral to Congress’s and the Committee’s investigative powers. Allowing Mr. Pagliano’s conduct to go unaddressed would gravely harm Congress’s ability to conduct oversight.”

Pagliano was the person responsible for managing Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He worked for Clinton at the State Department while she was Secretary of State but also maintained her homebrew server in his off hours. Pagliano was subpoenaed to appear before the House Oversight Committee twice last September. Mark MacDougall, Pagliano’s attorney, argued his client should not have to appear since he would only be invoking his 5th Amendment right not to testify. Chaffetz insisted he would need to do so in person.

[Reck]

Will Pagliano rat out Hillary or fall on the sword?

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-02-16-JEC-to-Sessions-DOJ-Criminal-Referral-on-Contempt.pdf

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions today asking Sessions to consider convening a grand jury or bringing charges against Hillary Clinton’s former IT guy, Bryan Pagliano. Pagliano was subpoenaed to testify before the committee last year but refused to appear on two occasions. After the second refusal, the Oversight Committee voted to hold Pagliano in contempt. Chaffetz’ letter to AG Sessions reads in part, “Because Pagliano’s job functions included supporting mobile computing issues across the Department, he was uniquely positioned to answer questions regarding State Department policies and practices for preserving records, as well as the technological procedures utilized to do so.”

The letter concludes, “In light of Pagliano’s contumacious conduct in refusing to testify, the Department should bring the matter before a grand jury for its action or file an information charging Pagliano with violating 2 U.S.C. § 192.” In a statement released by the committee, Chaffetz says, “The authority to compel witnesses is integral to Congress’s and the Committee’s investigative powers. Allowing Mr. Pagliano’s conduct to go unaddressed would gravely harm Congress’s ability to conduct oversight.”

Pagliano was the person responsible for managing Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He worked for Clinton at the State Department while she was Secretary of State but also maintained her homebrew server in his off hours. Pagliano was subpoenaed to appear before the House Oversight Committee twice last September. Mark MacDougall, Pagliano’s attorney, argued his client should not have to appear since he would only be invoking his 5th Amendment right not to testify. Chaffetz insisted he would need to do so in person.

I see you're back on this fruitless horse. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

I see you're back on this fruitless horse. :lol
Did you welch on the ELE bet in this thread or the other one?

[Reck]

Did you welch on the ELE bet in this thread or the other one?

Did you mean the cucking? :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Did you mean the cucking? :lol
What is that even supposed to mean?

[Winehole23]

100% parapolitical speculation:

https://patribotics.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/the-carolina-conspiracy-putin-catfished-weiner-louise-mensch/

[RandomGuy]

100% parapolitical speculation:

https://patribotics.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/the-carolina-conspiracy-putin-catfished-weiner-louise-mensch/

that is some twisted leaps of logic... fun read.

[Thread]

I'll be frank here:::as much as I enjoy Trump/Pence I do find some satisfaction in seeing Pence get his nose rubbed in it. If he had not been so high & fuckin' mighty when Flynn disrespected him perhaps Flynn would still be there. But, no, he had to put his snout in the air and give everybody the silent treatment until Trump fired Flynn. How does it feel, big shot?

Same with the Uber guy. He couldn't stand the strain of being on one of Trump's panels and just had to make a big deal out of quitting it. He's done nothing but auger in since that day. He's begging people to not abandon his Uber while he had nary problem abandoning Clinton, I mean Trump.

The chickens, oh, those fucking chickens have come home to roost. Oh, roost.

[TheSanityAnnex]

that is some twisted leaps of logic... fun read.

Thanks for the bump

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-07-of-07/view

[Adam Lambert]

lol comey revealed to voters that hillary was under investigation because of weiners laptop, but did not reveal that members of the trump campaign were under a criminal investigation for collusion with russia

[Adam Lambert]

this fucking banana republic country is now a joke

good job comey

good job you fucking inbreds who voted for trump because you thought he cared about the working man

good job you retards who pretended to care about email scandals and corrupt personal foundations and fbi investigations and havent said shit about any of this

[SnakeBoy]

this fucking banana republic country is now a joke

good job comey

good job you fucking inbreds who voted for trump because you thought he cared about the working man

good job you retards who pretended to care about email scandals and corrupt personal foundations and fbi investigations and havent said shit about any of this

https://s3.amazonaws.com/wp-ag/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2015/12/hillary-clinton-laughing-bill-clinton.gif

[Adam Lambert]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/wp-ag/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2015/12/hillary-clinton-laughing-bill-clinton.gif

you think this shit is funny?

must be cool to be in a position where youre not affected by whoever the president is

and as a bonus, your country being a historical and global embarrassment doesnt phase you at all. neat

in 30 years youre going to be telling your grandkids what a total bag of shit donald trump was as a president, but make no mistake you and everyone else who thinks this is all just a big funny joke are complicit in this disaster.

[pgardn]

this fucking banana republic country is now a joke

good job comey

good job you fucking inbreds who voted for trump because you thought he cared about the working man

good job you retards who pretended to care about email scandals and corrupt personal foundations and fbi investigations and havent said shit about any of this

What we are actually witnessing imo is how strong this country really is. We appear to have an incompetent liar as a president yet we will go forward. What we are witnessing is the strength of our press and the working end of the separation of powers. Our democracy can be incredibly inefficient at times but very difficult to take down.

[Adam Lambert]

What we are actually witnessing imo is how strong this country really is. We appear to have an incompetent liar as a president yet we will go forward. What we are witnessing is the strength of our press and the working end of the separation of powers. Our democracy can be incredibly inefficient at times but very difficult to take down.

id rather not test its limits though.

the press can only do so much when the population is being actively trained to distrust everything they say. the separation of powers is already on thin ice seeing as gop republicans are spineless.

hope gorsuch is as reasonable as he claims to be.

[TSA]

the press can only do so much when the population is being actively trained to distrust everything they say.

https://i.redd.it/ol970kkt2nyx.jpg

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xlPTXnIzZDARYQ/giphy.gif

[Adam Lambert]

^ case in point this useful idiot and the other minions who dont know the difference between collusion and standard journalism practice

tell me, 4chanityannex, what % of those names are on that list because they emailed someone with clinton to verify a quote?

[TSA]

Standard journalism practice

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZthFHLdJwEhnH68/giphy.gif

In April 2015, the Clinton campaign held a private dinner party with at least 65 journalists and pundits in attendance. Individuals from CNN, CBS, The New York Times, NBC, MSNBC and more came together under the campaign’s stated goal of “framing the race” to help Clinton win. Many of the above media outlets were indeed the Clinton campaign’s biggest surrogates throughout the 2016 presidential election.

This past election cycle was unprecedented in terms of the bias and lack of objectivity exercised by the mainstream media. The emphasis on mainstream media blaming “fake news” for Donald Trump’s election is an attempt to distract and divert the feedback loop developed between the Clinton campaign and much of the press. Throughout the 2016 election, the media obsessed over Trump to elevate his candidacy. He was their preferred opponent for Hillary Clinton—after they had thoroughly subverted Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Several journalists from The New York Times, which formally endorsed Clinton twice, created propaganda for the Clinton campaign rather than independent journalism. The Times’ Mark Leibovich allowed Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri to “veto what you didn’t want” from his interview with Clinton. Maggie Haberman was listed by the Clinton campaign as a friendly reporter with whom they could plant stories. Haberman also allowed Clinton campaign staff to proofread her pro-Clinton stories.

The Times’ Patrick Healy published a “heroine” piece planted by the Clinton campaign about New Hampshire Clinton campaign volunteer Laura Donahoe. Jonathan Martin was revealed to have been coached through a story on the Clinton campaign by manager Robby Mook. Jason Horowitz solicited a quote from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta on a hit piece about the relationship between President Obama and Sanders.

The New York Times wasn’t alone. Politico reporter Ken Vogel had Democratic National Committee (DNC) communications director Luis Miranda review an article before he sent it to editors as part of an agreement with the DNC. Politico has since called Vogel’s actions “a mistake.” Glenn Thrush also allowed Podesta to approve articles.

CNN published an anti-Sanders Op-Ed written by Clinton lobbyist Maria Cardona—it was proofread by the DNC.

The Intercept reported in May that an Op-Ed ostensibly written by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and intended to discredit Sanders was actually written by a Clinton lobbyist and proofread by a Clinton Super PAC, which sent the article to CNN. CNN regularly featured pundits with financial ties to the Clintons, yet failed to disclose those ties before the pundits praised Clinton. DNC interim chair Donna Brazile was revealed to have obtained CNN debate questions while working for the network and forwarded them to the Clinton campaign. CNN also allowed the DNC to compile questions to be asked during interviews with Republican candidates on air.

In the WikiLeaks release of DNC emails, The Washington Post was exposed to have hosted a joint fundraiser with the Clinton campaign. The paper published hyperbolic hit pieces on Sanders throughout the primaries, including the editorial board calling his campaign “fiction-filled” and an article published with the title claiming that nominating Sanders would be “insane.” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s (FAIR) Adam Johnson pointed out the Post published 16 hit pieces on Sanders in the span of 16 hours in early March. Harper‘s Thomas Frank wrote also a detailed piece on how WaPo sabotaged Sanders during the primaries.

Wall Street Journal reporter Laura Meckler received a letter leaked to her from DNC communications director Miranda and used it to write a hit piece on Sanders during the primaries. Miranda used the same reporter to criticize Sanders in the media over convention platform appointments.

The Associated Press was cited by the Clinton campaign as a publication in which they could plant stories with friendly journalists Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper, including discussions regarding the private email server scandal. Robby Mook’s assistant emailed fellow Clinton staff members asking what time would they prefer the story be published by the AP. They also called the Democratic primaries for Clinton before California even voted, citing anonymous superdelegates.

MSNBC halted negative coverage of former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz after she called the network’s president, Phil Griffin, to complain. Two days after Clinton campaign staff discussed how to attack Sanders on campaign finance by citing a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) retreat he attended several months earlier, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote a Sanders hit piece using the very same criticisms. Seitz-Wald, like many other pro-Clinton journalists, started out at John Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Seitz-Wald also propagated the chair-throwing myth at the Nevada Democratic Convention to discredit Sanders and his supporters. Meet the Press host Chuck Todd held a private party for Jennifer Palmieri while she was working as the Clinton campaign communications director. MSNBC host Joy Reid regularly pushed false narratives in order to help Clinton, especially in regards to WikiLeaks. Rachel Maddow premiered ads from Clinton Super PACs on her show.

CNBC correspondent John Harwood emailed Clinton Podesta on a regular basis, soliciting access in exchange for friendly coverage on Clinton.

Several prominent bloggers—MTV News’ Jamil Smith, Guardian columnists Sady Doyle and Jessica Valenti, Tech LadyMafia founder Aminatou Sow, America’s Voice Gabe Ortiz and Latino blogger Elianne Ramos who was later hired by the Clinton campaign—were selected by Clinton campaign staff to attend a conference call in which they could disseminate information they wanted the bloggers to propagate “without our fingerprints.”

Vox’s editor in chief, Ezra Klein, was cited by Clinton campaign staff as an attack dog they could use to push out a story they were putting together.

All these outlets and networks played significant roles in perpetuating false narratives in favor of the Clinton campaign. This includes the “Bernie Bros” myth, the whitewashing of the Sanders campaign, and adding superdelegates to Democratic primary tallies, even though they don’t cast their votes until the Democratic National Convention.

The DNC and Clinton campaign manipulated mainstream media coverage to further Clinton’s candidacy, especially in the Democratic primaries.

Clinton’s lack of press conferences during the primaries and general election are symptomatic of her not willing to deal with any media not entirely subservient to the campaign’s political agenda. As the mainstream media offers more excuses to avoid responsibility and accountability for this election, major press reforms are needed. Admitting the vast amounts of unethical, pro-Clinton coverage among media elites would be a good start.

http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/

https://media.giphy.com/media/OucChgZUbw1gI/giphy.gif

[Adam Lambert]

lol observer

link to the stated goal of the dinner party being to "frame the race to help clinton win"?

lol observer

every campaign sends press releases to news sources and yeah they tend to favor writers who skew their way ideologically. standard practice. you expect the clinton staff to send releases to sean hannity? of course not, thats what trumps staff does.

lol observer

lol not understanding how this works and crying scandal

lol pizza

[TSA]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5953
EVENT MEMO
FR: Jesse Ferguson
RE: Benenson’s Cocktails on 4.10.15
This is an off-the-record cocktails with the key national reporters, especially (though not exclusively) those that are based in New York. Much of the group includes influential reporters, anchors and editors.
The goals of the dinner include:
(1) Give reporters their first thoughts from team HRC in advance of the announcement
(2) Setting expectations for the announcement and launch period
(3) Framing the HRC message and framing the race
(4) Enjoy a Frida night drink before working more
TIME/DATE: As a reminder, this is called for 6:30 p.m. on Friday, April 10th. There are several attendees – including Diane Sawyer – who will be there promptly at 6:30 p.m. but have to leave by 7 p.m.
LOCATION: The address of his home is 60 E. 96th Street, #12B, New York, 10128.
CONTACT: If you have last minute emergencies please contact me (703-966-2689) or Joel Benenson (917-991-0155).
FOOD: This will include cocktails and passed hours devours.
REPORTER RSVPs
YES
1. ABC - Cecilia Vega
2. ABC - David Muir
3. ABC – Diane Sawyer
4. ABC – George Stephanoplous
5. ABC - Jon Karl
6. Bloomberg – John Heillman
7. Bloomberg – Mark Halperin
8. CBS - Norah O'Donnell
9. CBS - Vicki Gordon
10. CNN - Brianna Keilar
11. CNN - David Chalian
12. CNN – Gloria Borger
13. CNN - Jeff Zeleny
14. CNN – John Berman
15. CNN – Kate Bouldan
16. CNN - Mark Preston
17. CNN - Sam Feist
18. Daily Beast - Jackie Kucinich
19. GPG - Mike Feldman
20. Huffington Post - Whitney Snyder
21. MORE - Betsy Fisher Martin
22. MSNBC – Alex Wagner
23. MSNBC - Beth Fouhy
24. MSNBC - Phil Griffin
25. MSNBC – Rachel Maddow (TBD)
26. MSNBC – Rachel Racusen
27. NBC – Savannah Gutherie
28. New Yorker - Ryan Liza
29. NYT – Amy Chozik
30. NYT - Gail Collins
31. NYT - Jonathan Martin
32. NYT – Maggie Haberman
33. NYT – Pat Healey
34. PEOPLE - Sandra Sobieraj Westfall
35. POLITICO – Glenn Thrush
36. POLITICO - Mike Allen
37. VICE - Alyssa Mastramonoco
38. VOX - Jon Allen
UNKNOWN
1. Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter
2. Buzzfeed – Ben Smith
3. CBS - Gayle King
4. CBS - John Dickerson
5. MSNBC – Ed Schultz
6. MSNBC - Joe Scarborough
7. New Yorker - David Remnick
8. Tina Brown
9. UNIVISION - Maria-Elena Salinas
10. YAHOO - Matt Bai
DECLINED
1. CNN - Jake Taper
2. CNN - Jeff Zucker
3. Huffington Post – Arianna Huffington
4. Huffington Post - Sam Stein
5. NBC - Chuck Todd
6. NYT - Carolyn Ryan
7. CNN – Erin Burnett
8. NPR - Mike Oreskes
9. MSNBC - Mika Brzezinski
10. MSNBC – Thomas Roberts
11. MSNBC - Andrea Mitchell
12. NY Post – Geofe Earl
HRC TEAM RSVP (14)
1. John Podesta
2. Robby Mook
3. Huma Abedin
4. Marlon Marshall
5. Amanda Renteria
6. Jennifer Palmieri
7. Kristina Schake
8. Jesse Ferguson
9. Nick Merrill
10. Karen Finney
11. Jim Margolis
12. Joel Benenson
13. John Anzalone
14. Mandy Grunwald


lol ignoring the entirety of the article
lol standard journalism practice

[Spurminator]

I attended a work event sponsored by a vendor that was trying to sell me a service. I did not buy that service.

That dinner doesn't sound all that unconventional to me and I would be surprised if it wasn't fairly common for major candidates. If Bernie's people didn't hold a similar dinner they probably should have.

[Adam Lambert]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5953
EVENT MEMO
FR: Jesse Ferguson
RE: Benenson’s Cocktails on 4.10.15
This is an off-the-record cocktails with the key national reporters, especially (though not exclusively) those that are based in New York. Much of the group includes influential reporters, anchors and editors.
The goals of the dinner include:
(1) Give reporters their first thoughts from team HRC in advance of the announcement
(2) Setting expectations for the announcement and launch period
(3) Framing the HRC message and framing the race
(4) Enjoy a Frida night drink before working more
TIME/DATE: As a reminder, this is called for 6:30 p.m. on Friday, April 10th. There are several attendees – including Diane Sawyer – who will be there promptly at 6:30 p.m. but have to leave by 7 p.m.
LOCATION: The address of his home is 60 E. 96th Street, #12B, New York, 10128.
CONTACT: If you have last minute emergencies please contact me (703-966-2689) or Joel Benenson (917-991-0155).
FOOD: This will include cocktails and passed hours devours.
REPORTER RSVPs
YES
1. ABC - Cecilia Vega
2. ABC - David Muir
3. ABC – Diane Sawyer
4. ABC – George Stephanoplous
5. ABC - Jon Karl
6. Bloomberg – John Heillman
7. Bloomberg – Mark Halperin
8. CBS - Norah O'Donnell
9. CBS - Vicki Gordon
10. CNN - Brianna Keilar
11. CNN - David Chalian
12. CNN – Gloria Borger
13. CNN - Jeff Zeleny
14. CNN – John Berman
15. CNN – Kate Bouldan
16. CNN - Mark Preston
17. CNN - Sam Feist
18. Daily Beast - Jackie Kucinich
19. GPG - Mike Feldman
20. Huffington Post - Whitney Snyder
21. MORE - Betsy Fisher Martin
22. MSNBC – Alex Wagner
23. MSNBC - Beth Fouhy
24. MSNBC - Phil Griffin
25. MSNBC – Rachel Maddow (TBD)
26. MSNBC – Rachel Racusen
27. NBC – Savannah Gutherie
28. New Yorker - Ryan Liza
29. NYT – Amy Chozik
30. NYT - Gail Collins
31. NYT - Jonathan Martin
32. NYT – Maggie Haberman
33. NYT – Pat Healey
34. PEOPLE - Sandra Sobieraj Westfall
35. POLITICO – Glenn Thrush
36. POLITICO - Mike Allen
37. VICE - Alyssa Mastramonoco
38. VOX - Jon Allen
UNKNOWN
1. Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter
2. Buzzfeed – Ben Smith
3. CBS - Gayle King
4. CBS - John Dickerson
5. MSNBC – Ed Schultz
6. MSNBC - Joe Scarborough
7. New Yorker - David Remnick
8. Tina Brown
9. UNIVISION - Maria-Elena Salinas
10. YAHOO - Matt Bai
DECLINED
1. CNN - Jake Taper
2. CNN - Jeff Zucker
3. Huffington Post – Arianna Huffington
4. Huffington Post - Sam Stein
5. NBC - Chuck Todd
6. NYT - Carolyn Ryan
7. CNN – Erin Burnett
8. NPR - Mike Oreskes
9. MSNBC - Mika Brzezinski
10. MSNBC – Thomas Roberts
11. MSNBC - Andrea Mitchell
12. NY Post – Geofe Earl
HRC TEAM RSVP (14)
1. John Podesta
2. Robby Mook
3. Huma Abedin
4. Marlon Marshall
5. Amanda Renteria
6. Jennifer Palmieri
7. Kristina Schake
8. Jesse Ferguson
9. Nick Merrill
10. Karen Finney
11. Jim Margolis
12. Joel Benenson
13. John Anzalone
14. Mandy Grunwald


lol ignoring the entirety of the article
lol standard journalism practice

obviously attending a dinner qualifies as collusion.

why havent any of these journalists been prosecuted for illegal activities?

[TSA]

lol given the stated goal of the dinner party and still ignoring the entirety of the article

[spurraider21]

:lol hillary's campaign press secretary invited journalists to an event that hillary herself didn't attend... that means every journalist on that list colluded with hillary?

if my campaign press secretary is holding an event whose purpose ISN'T to help me win, i'd fire him

[SnakeBoy]

you think this shit is funny?

must be cool to be in a position where youre not affected by whoever the president is

and as a bonus, your country being a historical and global embarrassment doesnt phase you at all. neat

in 30 years youre going to be telling your grandkids what a total bag of shit donald trump was as a president, but make no mistake you and everyone else who thinks this is all just a big funny joke are complicit in this disaster.

:lmao

How have you been affected by this President? Be specific.

[TSA]

:lol hillary's campaign press secretary invited journalists to an event that hillary herself didn't attend... that means every journalist on that list colluded with hillary?

Lambert asked for a link with the stated goal for the dinner. No one claimed every attendee colluded with Hillary.

The collusion is laid out in the article, which Lambert and now you chose to ignore.

[spurraider21]

No one claimed every attendee colluded with Hillary.


https://i.redd.it/ol970kkt2nyx.jpg

[monosylab1k]

^:lol

[monosylab1k]

Two minutes of Googling showed me that the writer of that Observer article is a hardcore Bernie Bro, so yeah, definitely not a biased article.

[Adam Lambert]

Lambert asked for a link with the stated goal for the dinner. No one claimed every attendee colluded with Hillary.

The collusion is laid out in the article, which Lambert and now you chose to ignore.

the article lists several examples of standard journalistic practice.

if you dont like that journalists sometimes go back and forth with their sources to wordsmith and attribute, or to get quotes, or that sometimes stories are suggested to them by outside people with pr agendas, go to a journalism school and complain to them.

if you dont think this is happening every bit with republicans and fox news breitbart and other news orgs just because wikileaks hasn't leaked anything on them, its just more proof of what a silly naive useful idiot you are.

[TSA]

@ spurraider21 that isn't a list of every attendee

[TSA]

the article lists several examples of standard journalistic practice.

if you dont like that journalists sometimes go back and forth with their sources to wordsmith and attribute, or to get quotes, or that sometimes stories are suggested to them by outside people with pr agendas, go to a journalism school and complain to them.

if you dont think this is happening every bit with republicans and fox news breitbart and other news orgs just because wikileaks hasn't leaked anything on them, its just more proof of what a silly naive useful idiot you are.

list the several examples of standard journalistic practices in the article and then let's compare that to how many non-standard journalistic practices the article lists.

[spurraider21]

@ spurraider21 that isn't a list of every attendee
The two lists match up nearly perfectly. Exact same journalists from the same sources minus a small handful

[TSA]

Two minutes of Googling showed me that the writer of that Observer article is a hardcore Bernie Bro, so yeah, definitely not a biased article.

appeal to hypocrisy.

try again.

[TSA]

The two lists match up perfectly. Exact same journalists from the same sources.

nope

[spurraider21]

nope
Just edited. Minor exceptions like the Guardian and the hill. The lists from nyt, abc , cnn, msnbc, etc are matches

[Adam Lambert]

list the several examples of standard journalistic practices in the article and then let's compare that to how many non-standard journalistic practices the article lists.

thats a lot more work than im willing to put into your wild conspiracy theories

how about you give me one example from that article and explain why its collusion and tell me with confidence that examples of that have not also happened with conservative media

just because you dont like it doesnt make it illegal and definitely doesnt make it new.
and just because wikileaks revealed it doesnt make it unique.

[TSA]

thats a lot more work than im willing to put into your wild conspiracy theories

how about you give me one example from that article and explain why its collusion and tell me with confidence that examples of that have not also happened with conservative media

just because you dont like it doesnt make it illegal and definitely doesnt make it new.
and just because wikileaks revealed it doesnt make it unique.

Donna Brazile

Now stop being a lazy fuck, put in the work, and list the several examples of standard journalistic practices in the articles

[TSA]

Two minutes of Googling showed me that the writer of that Observer article is a hardcore Bernie Bro, so yeah, definitely not a biased article.

Glenn Greenwald okay?

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/

[Adam Lambert]

Donna Brazile

Now stop being a lazy fuck, put in the work, and list the several examples of standard journalistic practices in the articles

nah, you know what, its my bad for even letting you redirect the discussion with this stupid tangent.

my original statement: "the press can only do so much when the population is being actively trained to distrust everything they say."

the press is not defined by a few examples of biased media. i never claimed biased media doesnt exist. it exists on both sides of politics, though i bet well never see you bitch about fox news getting talking points directly from the rnc.

you know as well as i do that trump minions are being conditioned to distrust all criticism and doubt directed at the president, and instead only trust the president himself, who has openly lied to americans almost weekly.

even your precious intercept is doubted by trump minions when they publish something that isnt a verbal blowjob for him.

stop being an enabler just to impress your 4chan friends. youre peddling bullshit.

[TSA]

:lol hillary's campaign press secretary invited journalists to an event that hillary herself didn't attend... that means every journalist on that list colluded with hillary?

If I get bored enough this afternoon I may just start listing them off one by one

Chief Washington correspondent at CNBC, John Harwood
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51338

[TSA]

nah, you know what, its my bad for even letting you redirect the discussion with this stupid tangent.

my original statement: "the press can only do so much when the population is being actively trained to distrust everything they say."

the press is not defined by a few examples of biased media. i never claimed biased media doesnt exist. it exists on both sides of politics, though i bet well never see you bitch about fox news getting talking points directly from the rnc.

you know as well as i do that trump minions are being conditioned to distrust all criticism and doubt directed at the president, and instead only trust the president himself, who has openly lied to americans almost weekly.

even your precious intercept is doubted by trump minions when they publish something that isnt a verbal blowjob for him.

stop being an enabler just to impress your 4chan friends. youre peddling bullshit.

:lol Lambert with the white flag

[Adam Lambert]

youre using examples of media members being selective with their coverage to justify placing your trust in people who actually lie.

trump and his people are liars. open, unapologetic liars.

there is a difference and it matters.

[Adam Lambert]

:lol Lambert with the white flag

its a course correction. i shouldnt have let you drag me into an irrelevant argument. if it helps you sleep better being a tyranny-enabling tool with no real friends, go ahead and claim scoreboard

[TSA]

youre using examples of media members being selective with their coverage to justify placing your trust in people who actually lie.

trump and his people are liars. open, unapologetic liars.

there is a difference and it matters.

Hillary and her people were liars. open, unapologetic liars.

http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/styles/story_624_300/public/636_clinton_benghazi_hearing1.gif

[TSA]

its a course correction. i shouldnt have let you drag me into an irrelevant argument. if it helps you sleep better being a tyranny-enabling tool with no real friends, go ahead and claim scoreboard

:lol and what exactly are you doing to stop the tyranny Adam.

[Adam Lambert]

Hillary and her people were liars. open, unapologetic liars.

http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/styles/story_624_300/public/636_clinton_benghazi_hearing1.gif

sending press releases and having dinner parties isnt lying.

[TSA]

sending press releases and having dinner parties isnt lying.

well not shit Adam that would be the collusion you weren't willing to discuss

media bias exists on both sides
both sides lie openly and are unapologetic
you lost
do something to stop they tyranny or shut the fuck up

[Adam Lambert]

well not shit Adam that would be the collusion you weren't willing to discuss

lol bitch even you said the dinner party wasnt your example of collusion


media bias exists on both sides

correct.


both sides lie openly and are unapologetic

incorrect. no president or candidate in history, not even clinton, lied the way trump does. its not even close.

if clinton accused a prior president of wiretapping her youd drown in your own pizza flavored semen.

[Spurminator]

Bias is to be expected, but still damages the credibility of a journalist or news source who shows bias. But blanketing all media as untrustworthy is lazy.

And it's especially dangerous if your solution is to, instead, only trust the word of the Executive and his propaganda outlets.

[TSA]

lol bitch even you said the dinner party wasnt your example of collusion



correct.



incorrect. no president or candidate in history, not even clinton, lied the way trump does. its not even close.

if clinton accused a prior president of wiretapping her youd drown in your own pizza flavored semen.

if you take the time to go through the article and list all the examples of standard journalistic practices I will take the time to list all of Hillary Clinton's lies

[TSA]

Bias is to be expected, but still damages the credibility of a journalist or news source who shows bias. But blanketing all media as untrustworthy is lazy.

And it's especially dangerous if your solution is to, instead, only trust the word of the Executive and his propaganda outlets.

What exactly would you call Trump's propaganda outlets? Twitter?

[boutons_deux]

What exactly would you call Trump's propaganda outlets? Twitter?

Trash his cited Fox in so many of his statements, tweets that were proven to be LIES, that Trash is trashing Fox not worth a rat turd.