For those with doubts...Clinton Foundation timeline

[TheSanityAnnex]

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


And early yesterday morning, the founder of Wikileaks was supposed to unleash a fresh batch of leaked (or stolen) do ents intended to upend Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects. Pro-Trump enthusiasts branded the announcement as a can’t-miss occasion that would change the tide of the neck-and-neck race.


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

Yes, Google.


Assange’s problem with Google traces back to Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google and current chairman of the board, and his ties to the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The Wikileaks founder never liked Google, as a longtime advocate of a decentralized internet, and he’s also railed against digital surveillance for decades.




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


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




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


Assange has since used his public status to criticize U.S. foreign policy, especially since Clinton, when serving as Secretary of State, publicly denounced Wikileaks as an attack on U.S. foreign relations and criticized the website for laundering “stolen” do ents.
And Assange, being a longtime internetactivist, began tracking Google’s ties to the State Department, which came into focus after a former Clinton staffer named Jared Cohen left to work for Google in 2010.
Assange claims Schmidt has worked closely with Clinton’s campaign for years, and indeed, Alphabet’s executive chairman does back a startup that’s become a major provider of data analytics for the Clinton campaign. Schmidt now also chairs a new innovation board at the Pentagon intended to bring Silicon Valley’s expertise in leveraging new technologies into military projects.


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


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


Wikileaks brands itself as a radical transparency organization, even if more recently it seems to be operating like an opposition research firm against Hillary Clinton after releasing nearly 20,000 private emails in July that led to the resignation of several key figures within the Democratic National Committee.


Assange admitted that he released the do ents ahead of the Democratic National Convention in an attempt to turn the American public against Clinton. But that hasn’t exactly worked.

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


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

http://www.recode.net/2016/10/5/1316...ton-leaks-hack

[rmt]

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

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

[spurraider21]

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

listened in full... that was terrific

[101A]

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

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

[FkLA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

Boomers overwhelmingly voted for Clinton over Sanders.

[RandomGuy]

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

No.

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

Do you dispute that?

[RandomGuy]

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

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

It was a bit more than that.

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

[RandomGuy]

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

You're right.

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

If Clinton Needs to Close Her Foundation, Trump Needs to Dissolve His Company
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-interest.html

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

Sums it up.

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

[SnakeBoy]

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

It was a bit more than that.

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

Poor RG so shocked by the Howard Stern show

[SnakeBoy]

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

[SnakeBoy]

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

You genuinely don't care?

What do you care about?

[RandomGuy]

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

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

[rmt]

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

Why do you like him?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you like him?

He wasn't being entirely clear.

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

Should probably read:

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

Poor word choice, easily misconstrued.

[rmt]

He wasn't being entirely clear.



Should probably read:

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

Poor word choice, easily misconstrued.

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

[clambake]

salty

[SnakeBoy]

Why do you like him?

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

Is St Ronnie a neocon or not?

[SnakeBoy]

Is St Ronnie a neocon or not?

Reagan wasn't a neocon.

[SnakeBoy]

He wasn't being entirely clear.



Should probably read:

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

Poor word choice, easily misconstrued.

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

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