like that rollover Sanders will ever be able to hold Clinton accountable for anything
Hillary Clinton sent Chelsea info now deemed classified
By JOSH GERSTEIN and 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/2016/1...#ixzz4P9qHe1My
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
"now classified"
how about then?
all y'all Hillary haters got nothing, really no ing thing. Gonna be hilarious watching y'all eat Tue night!
Illegal then too."now classified"
how about then?
all y'all Hillary haters got nothing, really no ing thing. Gonna be hilarious watching y'all eat Tue night!
The original pair of messages from Froman were given the lowest classification stamp, "Confidential," about a year ago when they were released. 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/2016/1...#ixzz4P9tqwSX5
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Hillary, please stick to good, old fashion letters from now on.
TWO ING MESSAGES! to that RUSSIAN mole Chelsea Clinton!
How many is messages is that now will put Hillary in Prison?
Benghazi!
Vince Foster!
Whitewater!
etc, etc
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...mp-base-230755
Just staying impartial...
Article makes it appear that Comey's job is impossible.
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...business_pop_bThose do ents 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, and the new do ents 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.
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 do ents 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.
^ that makes him smart
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. "Of course I do, and so do all of her donors, or most of her donors."
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
in an unrelated case, Trump destroyed records too:
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/d...ts-515120.htmlFinally, under subpoena, Trump appeared for a short deposition. When asked about the missing do ents, he made a shocking admission: The Trumps had been destroying their corporate records for the previous six months and had no do ent-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 do ents into the shredder and garbage.
This review of Trump’s many decades of abusing the judicial system, ignoring judges, disregarding rules, destroying do ents 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 do ent 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.
She should do like the old school Mafia: nothing in writing or on the phone. Everything was done face to face and in code.
A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's campaign said Sunday that if Wikileaks were to publish a bombs 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/clint...emails-2016-11
has the leaked material been authenticated so far?
are you taking the position it's faked?
Then he gave her his endorsement.
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?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote