THE WIKILEAKS

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Are you sure you want to see your country in the hands of such an unmitigated disaster as Donald Trump?

 

I try to keep an open mind and think positive........much the same was said when Reagan beat Bush the elder and then Carter......and it was touch and go for his first two years at that.......does that make Trump a Reagan 2.0? Probably not, but far better then more and the same.

[kimmy]

3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

I try to keep an open mind and think positive........much the same was said when Reagan beat Bush the elder and then Carter......and it was touch and go for his first two years at that.......does that make Trump a Reagan 2.0? Probably not, but far better then more and the same.

So you think he's going to create the 5%+ GDP growth he says he needs to offset the trillions of dollars of tax-cuts for rich-guys he wants to implement? You think his Neville Chamberlain stance on Russian expansionism is a winner?

 -k

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

unlikely that a doofus like Weiner has any significant pieces left to add to the puzzle.

 

Why? Play it out, Weiner is a rat fink, marriage was on the rocks and political career was over and was married to Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff, someone likely to be President Clinton's Chief of staff...........copies of since deleted, damaging emails are a "chip in the game"...

[kimmy]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Why? Play it out, Weiner is a rat fink, marriage was on the rocks and political career was over and was married to Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff, someone likely to be President Clinton's Chief of staff...........copies of since deleted, damaging emails are a "chip in the game"...

And supposing Weiner had access to such an incriminating email in the first place, which seems unlikely at best... what do you propose it might involve?

 -k

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

So you think he's going to create the 5%+ GDP growth he says he needs to offset the trillions of dollars of tax-cuts for rich-guys he wants to implement?

 

Doubt it, it would all be based on commodity pricing.........with that, what other large, nuclear nation, would benefit from an increase in the price of O&G? 

 

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

You think his Neville Chamberlain stance on Russian expansionism is a winner?

I don't consider it a Chamberlain stance.........Nixon went to China and Reagan to Iceland.........Obama/Clinton's "stance" has been a failure and is a joke.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

And supposing Weiner had access to such an incriminating email in the first place, which seems unlikely at best

Based on the FBI investigation, I wouldn't consider it "unlikely".........

 

4 minutes ago, kimmy said:

what do you propose it might involve?

Pay for play well at the State Department......evidence of obstruction...backroom deals etc etc...who knows

[kimmy]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Based on the FBI investigation, I wouldn't consider it "unlikely".........

As discussed earlier, all they needed to announce that they were reopening the investigation is that Weiner's emails had gone through Hillary's server.  They spent a lot of time and resources investigating Hillary's email server and couldn't build a case worth taking to court... but you're convinced that Anthony Weiner has the silver bullet? I think that's either optimism or desperation talking.

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Pay for play well at the State Department......evidence of obstruction...backroom deals etc etc...who knows

So you've got the Clinton Foundation, which is a registered and audited charity that does a massive amount of humanitarian work. And you've got the Trump Foundation, which isn't properly registered, isn't audited, and is used to issue bribes, pay legal expenses for Trump's for-profit businesses, and buy gigantic portraits of Trump.

And you've decided that the Clinton Foundation are the bad guys here?

 -k

[bush_cheney2004]

38 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Ok, but how does incompetent and delusional factor into your calculations?

Right up there with Canadian expectations for American domestic and foreign policies.

 

Quote

During the last debate Trump himself told you that his fiscal plans are based on the idea that the GDP is going to grow at 5% or more. Do you really trust a guy with a track record of running his own businesses into the ground and declaring bankruptcy to create 5%+ growth?

 

I am already on record for specifically NOT "supporting" Trump because his tax cuts would increase U.S. public deficits/debt.   Same reason I voted for Ross Perot in 1992.  I don't care about Trump's personal peccadilloes...sure didn't stop Bill Clinton, JFK, Ike, FDR, etc.

 

Quote

You said you're going "third party pizza" this election (Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson?) but whatever your personal choice you know that you're getting either Trump or Clinton. Are you sure you want to see your country in the hands of such an unmitigated disaster as Donald Trump?

 

One vote to a customer, and only American citizens please.   I live in a "blue state", so in the end my vote is only a personal exercise in civics.   Wouldn't matter if I voted for Trump or Daffy Duck.   But yes, I could live with a President Trump more than another (impeached) President Clinton.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, kimmy said:

As discussed earlier, all they needed to announce that they were reopening the investigation is that Weiner's emails had gone through Hillary's server.  They spent a lot of time and resources investigating Hillary's email server and couldn't build a case worth taking to court... but you're convinced that Anthony Weiner has the silver bullet? I think that's either optimism or desperation talking.

So you've got the Clinton Foundation, which is a registered and audited charity that does a massive amount of humanitarian work. And you've got the Trump Foundation, which isn't properly registered, isn't audited, and is used to issue bribes, pay legal expenses for Trump's for-profit businesses, and buy gigantic portraits of Trump.

And you've decided that the Clinton Foundation are the bad guys here?

 -k

When a charity brings in hundreds of millions of dollars from sketchy sources and can only show 6% going toward actual charity, I'd say that maybe they should be investigated.

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, kimmy said:

As discussed earlier, all they needed to announce that they were reopening the investigation is that Weiner's emails had gone through Hillary's server. 

 

Why did Hillary Clinton have a private email server to begin with ?   Why was she using it for official government traffic (classified and unclassified) ?  

Clinton's apology for her "mistake" isn't good enough.   

 

[Derek 2.0]

33 minutes ago, kimmy said:

spent a lot of time and resources investigating Hillary's email server and couldn't build a case worth taking to court

Sure, would that have been the case though had Clinton not have deleted 30k+ emails before handing it over to the FBI? That is the question

 

33 minutes ago, kimmy said:

I think that's either optimism or desperation talking.

A little from column A and a little from column B for sure.......I'd take a Trump presidency as a result if (the) Clinton(s) and friends get nailed to the cross....

 

33 minutes ago, kimmy said:

And you've decided that the Clinton Foundation are the bad guys here?

 -k

Trump is a flim-flam artist without a doubt, but he's never held a position in which he could abuse the public's trust through the abuse of political power.....If the Clinton's abused their office and influence for personal gain donations to their foundation they should be in Federal prison.........despite the Trump negatives, he's not currently tied to two different investigations by the FBI....quite the litmus test

Edited November 4, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[kimmy]

 

11 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

When a charity brings in hundreds of millions of dollars from sketchy sources and can only show 6% going toward actual charity, I'd say that maybe they should be investigated.

This is typical of the kind of deceptive half-truth the Trump supporters peddle.

It's true that only 6% of Clinton Foundation revenue was spent as charitable grants.  Would would be utterly damning, if grants were the only thing that the Clinton Foundation does. But it isn't.
 

Quote

 

We’ll use the Clinton Foundation’s most recent IRS tax form, for 2014, as an example. (It starts on Page 28 of this document.) The foundation reported total expenses in 2014 of a little over $91 million but grants of just $5.1 million. That’s close to 6 percent of the foundation’s money being spent on grants.

Over a five-year period from 2009-12, the foundation raised over $500 million, the conservative website The Federalist reported, but only 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went toward grants.

But that doesn’t mean everything else is overhead, people who monitor charities and their practices say.

"Although it has ‘foundation’ in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity," Brian Mittendorf, a professor of accounting at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, wrote in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. "In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.

"Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation."

 

In short, the Clinton Foundation gives such a small amount of money out as grants to other charities because they spend most of their revenue on charitable programs they run themselves.

Quote

 

Financial statement rules require a nonprofit to split its expenses between program services, fundraising, and management/general costs (the latter two are collectively what are referred to as "overhead"), Mittendorf told us.

He said that in 2014, 87.2 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenses were on program services.

"Of course, this only speaks to how the organization used its funds and not whether that 87.2 percent was allocated to the most effective program efforts, but it is all we have in terms of verifiable data on this question," Mittendorf said.

The American Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Watch, reached the same conclusion. It has given the Clinton Foundation an A rating and says it spends only 12 percent of the money it raises on "overhead."

"The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity," Charity Watch president Daniel Borochoff said Aug. 24, 2016, on CNN. "They are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really low. It only costs them $2 to raise $100."

 

 -k

[sharkman]

Wow, a lot of misinformation here.

 

First of all, painting the FBI with the big ole red neck brush is silly.  They couldn't find enough to bring Hillary to trial in July, remember?  If they were out to get her, that would have been the time.  The reason they're taking another look now is because of an inconvenient little thing called law.  Huma was using Weiner's laptop for her email communication to Clinton, thus it went through the private server.  Remember, Clinton purged 33,000 emails and doubtless some of those are to and from Huma, who signed a separation agreement in 2013 that stated she had given back all data, records, etc.  If there is classifeid data on that laptop, then she is in legal trouble, and ignorance is not a defence.  Do the 650,000 emails have classified information?  We'll see.  The FBI is saying that Hillary's server has been hacked by at least 5 foreign intelligence agencies, so we know that she's aided the enemy.  That should be enough for an arrest right there.

And let us remember the several devices that were literally smashed to pieces by the Hillary staffers.  Smart phones, laptops, I mean, who does that?  And who does it if they have nothing to hide?  And purge 33,000 emails because they have 'nothing' in them concerning the FBI's investigation.  "Yes officer, I threw out that baggy of green stuff, but it was just harmless plant substance, nothing to worry about!"  

Interestingly, Obama lied again.  He had said the first time he heard about Hillary's private server was when it was reported in the news.  But there are Obama emails on this server, and he used an alias, so no one would know!  Further, her address didn't contain ".gov" so he can't plead ignorance.  Plus Huma testified to the FBI that every time Hillary changed her address she had to tell the White House because Obama's devices are high security and every new address has to be cleared.  So when Obama says her server is no big deal, he's protecting his own butt and is not an objective observer.

The IRS is presently investigating the Clinton Foundation, as is the FBI.  Yes, the same IRS that suppressed conservative applications for non profit status.  They are not a bunch of red necks like the FBI is, sorry kimmy.  Which brings us to the DOJ, which has been actively suppressing the FBI's investigations.  Loretta Lynch, who met privately with Bill Clinton while his wife was under investigation, has taken a far more active role in this election cycle than Comey, and the left's ignoring this while pointing at Comey is just more nonsense.  

It's a sad mess.  It all could have been avoided.  She didn't need a private server except to hide her pay for play activities and now she's created the biggest mess since Nixon.  Fun fact, which university gave Bill Clinton 1 million to be a figurehead Chancellor?  Oh wait, it wasn't 1 million, it was 17.6 million, nice work if you can get it.

Edited November 4, 2016 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

6 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Wow, a lot of misinformation here...

The IRS is presently investigating the Clinton Foundation, as is the FBI.  

Appropriate that you include the disclaimer about the misinformation to come. The report about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation was already revealed to be false and the guy who reported it has already said he made his assertion "inartfully." Try and keep up.

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/04/the-fbi-isnt-indicting-hillary-clinton-over-the-clinton-foundation-but-fox-news-wants-you-to-think-it-is/

[GostHacked]

15 hours ago, kimmy said:

As discussed earlier, all they needed to announce that they were reopening the investigation is that Weiner's emails had gone through Hillary's server.  They spent a lot of time and resources investigating Hillary's email server and couldn't build a case worth taking to court... but you're convinced that Anthony Weiner has the silver bullet? I think that's either optimism or desperation talking.

So you've got the Clinton Foundation, which is a registered and audited charity that does a massive amount of humanitarian work. And you've got the Trump Foundation, which isn't properly registered, isn't audited, and is used to issue bribes, pay legal expenses for Trump's for-profit businesses, and buy gigantic portraits of Trump.

And you've decided that the Clinton Foundation are the bad guys here?

 -k

The Clinton Foundation has been in trouble before, They are not viewed in a good light by Haitians.  Some military personnel were jailed for sensitive information which pales in comparison to how Hillary handled it all.

Trump and Clinton are both terrible candidates. Hit the restart button.

[?Impact]

Today's Wikileak has Jennifer Palmieri, communications director to Hilary Clinton on Oct 27, 2015 writing

Quote

I get a big, fat 'I told you so' on Comey being a bad choice

exactly 1 year and 1 day before Comey releasing his Weiner laptop investigation.

 

Could that have been payback? We have Rudy Giuliani saying that FBI insiders leaked information to the Trump campaign a couple of days ahead of that announcement. No matter what, it is an enabled web of corruption. 

[Wilber]

My opinion of the FBI has dropped to a new low. Opinionizing on investigations where they can't provide evidence to lay a charge. Leaking innuendo but no evidence to the media. This is supposed to be a trusted law enforcement agency? What a sewer. Canadians would go ballistic if the RCMP or CISIS engaged in this kind of crap at any time, let alone during an election.

[Cum Laude]

9 minutes ago, Wilber said:

My opinion of the FBI has dropped to a new low. Opinionizing on investigations where they can't provide evidence to lay a charge. Leaking innuendo but no evidence to the media. This is supposed to be a trusted law enforcement agency? What a sewer. Canadians would go ballistic if the RCMP or CISIS engaged in this kind of crap at any time, let alone during an election.

Most of my family is voting for Trump except my absent-minded grandmother. We have tried and tried to change her mind, but she has voted Dem every election since she died 14 years ago.

[Wilber]

26 minutes ago, Cum Laude said:

Most of my family is voting for Trump except my absent-minded grandmother. We have tried and tried to change her mind, but she has voted Dem every election since she died 14 years ago.

I'm not seeing a connection, other than maybe your family has very low expectations of their national police force.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I'm not seeing a connection, other than maybe your family has very low expectations of their national police force.

 

I see the connection...and it was funny ! 

[sharkman]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

My opinion of the FBI has dropped to a new low. Opinionizing on investigations where they can't provide evidence to lay a charge. Leaking innuendo but no evidence to the media. This is supposed to be a trusted law enforcement agency? What a sewer. Canadians would go ballistic if the RCMP or CISIS engaged in this kind of crap at any time, let alone during an election.

Canadians would not go ballistic, get real.  And the DOJ is interfering with the FBI which is just as bad.  Loretta Lynch is in Obama's back pocket and you don't mind because you can't think critically where Hillary is concerned, for some reason.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, sharkman said:

Canadians would not go ballistic, get real.  And the DOJ is interfering with the FBI which is just as bad.  Loretta Lynch is in Obama's back pocket and you don't mind because you can't think critically where Hillary is concerned, for some reason.

 

Bingo !    Don't all ex-presidents meet with DoJ at the airport just to discuss golf and the weather ?

[Wilber]

23 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Canadians would not go ballistic, get real.  And the DOJ is interfering with the FBI which is just as bad.  Loretta Lynch is in Obama's back pocket and you don't mind because you can't think critically where Hillary is concerned, for some reason.

This isn't about Hillary, it's about a law enforcement agency flushing its ethics down the toilet.

[Wilber]

Sharkman

What if someone close to you was the victim of a crime and because the police leaked information and prejudiced its investigation by commenting off the record, the perp walked. How would you feel about leaks then. Leaks and op eds from the cops are just ducky with you if they suit your purposes but that doesn't mean they always will and thats why they aren't OK at any time.

[OftenWrong]

It's unprecedented. Maybe the FBI knows something we don't know. I'll go with the cops before I believe some crooked politiciens and their bought media.

So rather than attack the police, as is vogue nowadays maybe you all should just play wait and see. Allow due process to take its course.