A new batch of State Department emails released Tuesday showed the close and sometimes overlapping interests between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.I knew this story was up, because I'd seen it at Memeorandum, my go-to source for trending news. I expected to find it on the front page at the NYT, but I ended up have to go back to Memeorandum to get the link. So let's examine the front page of the NYT and see what other presidential election news is there. I'll list them in the order that they are conspicuous on the front page. I'm not going to put links on them all.
The documents raised new questions about whether the charitable foundation worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department, a charge that Mrs. Clinton has faced in the past and has always denied.
In one email exchange, for instance, an executive at the Clinton Foundation in 2009 sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with the United States ambassador to Lebanon because of the donor’s interests there....
1. Unsurprisingly, the story presented as the most important one is that Trump said something that can be understood as very bad: "Trump Suggests Gun Owners Could Stop Clinton Agenda." Trump is always saying something, so there's always another story on the worst thing Trump recently said.
2. "Trump’s Support Among Republican Women Is Faltering." There's always another poll, so you can always point out some specific detail in that poll.
3. "Stress Over Money Pushed Clinton Into Corporate World." Finally, we get to something about Clinton, and it relates to the distant past and is not even actually negative, though the second half of the subheading tells us "But she has been accused of going against her principles." The first half of the subheading has already primed us to think of those accusers as jerks: "In an aspirational life on the edges of power, Mrs. Clinton shouldered her family’s financial burdens."
4. "Modest to Majestic: A Look at the Clintons’ Homes." Again, nothing that just happened. Is this mostly a real estate article or some digging down into finances? Okay, I clicked through. It's just the houses they've owned over the years — not including the White House and the Arkansas governor's mansion. But thrown in at the end is something I don't think they own (and that I'd never heard of): "Perched atop the Clinton library... is a tastefully decorated private residence where the Clintons stay when they’re in Little Rock." A penthouse was built on top of Bill's library?!
5. "New Election Podcast: A Landslide Win for Clinton?" Imagining the future.
6. "New Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation." Oh! I finally found it. It is on the front page, just very inconspicuous.
Posts
136 comments:
The Times is the Clintonite House Paper, serving her needs whenever possible. Here we have as close to a smoking gun as we're going to get--that Clinton and her aides basically intermingled their "foundation" work with State Department work--and it's completely drowned out by Trump's latest "outrage". Intentionally or not, he is saving this woman's candidacy.
Notice we've known about the Clinton Foundation for years now, and no news story ever uncovered just what the Foundation does and why so many well heeled donors and international businessmen are pumping money into it rather than other, more established charities? The smokescreen of Trump's campaign has worked well, because now we have to talk about whether he really wanted her assassinated or gets jumpy with the nuclear codes.
This whole election is a brilliant con job.
Landslide Trump. The polls are lies and total bullshit.
"It's incredibly funny how the mainstream media still has absolutely no self-awareness of the fact that no one trusts them." Paul Joseph Watson
BEST POLL EVER: 50,000 people polled in 50 states, 1/3 republican 1/3 democrat 1/3 independent. Trump won 67-19 - (Aug 7, 2016)
http://investmentwatchblog.com
A penthouse was built on top of Bill's library?!
It is for Bill's use whenever the new crop of library interns arrive...
So it was on the front page, just tucked out of the way abit. They have to still maintain some sort of veneer of objectivity I guess. There has to be some sort of defensibility for when people say "The NYT is so biased, they don't even cover these negative Clinton stories.", the times defenders can then say "See! See!? They did cover that one story... and it's on the front page! This proves they're not biased! It's all just in your fevered conservative imagination!"
All bullshit, all the time.
"It's incredibly funny how the mainstream media still has absolutely no self-awareness of the fact that no one trusts them." Paul Joseph Watson"
This is a gross mistake. The "mainstream media" is deliberately operated. This is not a matter of personal bias or "self awareness".
Arguably the Times could say "we place our stories based on what we think is going to get the most hits" and surely a "Trump wants Hillary shot!" story is going to get more interest than a "e-mails reveal Hillary is a crook!" story. But if news organizations have a journalistic duty to promote important news over sensationalistic news, they still should be giving the e-mail story more weight.
But then, they're a legacy paper--it'll take a lot to knock them off their perch. And this all serves the smoke screen.
If Nixon were alive today, he'd be impressed.
Here's what I've noticed about the NYT lately: they never include a comments section in articles that might hint of bad behavior by or bad news for their patrons on the left. True to form, on today's front page the latest "Trump said something dumb" article has a well-used comment section, but we're not allowed to read anyone's ruminations on Hillary's behavior.
As I have posted before: it is going to be the money that people will understand and that will eventually get her.
A penthouse was built on top of a public library funded and maintained by the federal government for the exclusive use of a former president?
The Clinton's are truly the closest I've seen to a royal family in the U.S. in my lifetime (which, to be fair, is post-Kennedy).
"All the news that fits our views!"
"The documents raised new questions about whether the charitable foundation worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department"
why do they write "raised new questions about whether" when the word "prove" is right there and more accurate?
Remember, the Clintons sold nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for $100,000. That's chump change compared to the scams they had while she was SOS. Imagine the billions they'll rake in once she's back in the oval office.
Yes, the Clinton's have a private residence in the Clinton Library. I hope they get taxed for it's use, but if not I hope one side is all glass allowing visitors to view the former president and first lady.
I'm surprised it was on the front page and not buried.
The Hillary library, when it goes up, will cover the entire United States. I'll have to buy a boat.
I don't think presidential libraries are wholly funded and maintained by the federal government, but there surely must be some federal funds involved..
The Clinton "double-wide" in Little Rock had collected 495 million dollars from various donors - including foreign govenments - when last heard from, and it was not yet finished then. I think this is another of the Clintons' "not-for-profit" foundations. Sandy "the burgler" Berger was employed there as a "scholar in residence," and he presumably was not the only one.
What a great way to keep them silent. Job at the Foundation. No tell-all books written.
The mass media is in bed with the democrat party. They are partners in crime.
Is today's theme on Althouse, Conspiracy Theory Day?
It's called corruption, folks.
Plain and simple.
Government of the corrupt, by the corrupt, for the corrupt.
The other kind of government is rapidly perishing from the earth.
"The mass media is in bed with the democrat party. They are partners in crime."
Its not merely that. The coordination is evident. This crosses corporate ownership and other institutional lines. This is all organized and centrally directed.
You still won't find a story in the WaPo.
The Propaganda Media is earning its money these days.
They've become an Olympic Event in themselves called Hillary Protecting and Trump Destruction.
The Golds for Trump Destruction keep piling up at CNN. The MSNBC team is winning silvers at best, they seem burned out. Fox is a poor bronze level being new to the game.
Hillary Protection is the old time game of "Clinton's can do no wrong", but it has now been juiced with IV drips of Insider GOP PEDs.
"Trump is always saying something, so there's always another story on the worst thing Trump recently said. " And he's always saying something that stupidly takes the focus off Hill, of O's misdeeds, and off the real problems of the country.
"2. "Trump’s Support Among Republican Women Is Faltering." There's always another poll, so you can always point out some specific detail in that poll." But, but, the polls are lying, say the Trumpites. Until the disaster happens in November. Then it will somehow be the fault of the people who warned against the clown.
"3. "Stress Over Money Pushed Clinton Into Corporate World." "Stress." Now that's funny. You can just see the prog journos at their keyboards trying to find the right word. Lust? Greed? Nah, let's go with stress.
"But she has been accused of going against her principles." Passive tense, assumes facts not in evidence. What principles, pray tell?
"In an aspirational life on the edges of power, Mrs. Clinton shouldered her family’s financial burdens." Now that's funny again. Power-mad = "aspirational"! Investment fraud + real estate fraud + obstruction of justice = "shouldering the burdens!
"Perched atop the Clinton library... is a tastefully decorated private residence where the Clintons stay when they’re in Little Rock." A penthouse was built on top of Bill's library?!" Yes. I think most exes now have one. Of course the Clintons turned it into another money-grubbing, influence-selling opportunity. Count on O to do the same, except on a larger scale, charging donors more and leveraging the income for greater continued power. So don't act all surprised and do the I-never-heard-about-this when O's palace goes up in Chicago. Word of Michelle possible running for office is already being floated, which will be critical to the scheme.
The whole foundation is a corrupt enterprise. It has been for years. So are the "speeches." The entanglement with State was there from her first day in office. The email scheme was designed mostly to cover the corrupt tracks. Dem politics has devolved into one big racket. It always has been at the local level, and in several states, but now it is national. Bernie smelled the foul stench but couldn't bring himself to go all out against it. Looks like he's feeding at the trough as well now.
Perhaps I was naive in the past, but I have grown disillusioned with our nation these past 8 years. The corruption is staggering. Not at all the country I thought I grew up in. Were things this bad before Obama? They didn't seem to be to me, but maybe I just didn't have the eyes to see and the ears to hear back then.
It's interesting that so far today we've come up with a couple of new conspiracies and regurgitated some older ones... this blog would be better served if we stuck to the facts and not speculation.. if you want to prove that the Clinton foundation is totally corrupt do the background grunt work and put it out there... there are plenty of conservative leaning newspapers out there... Althouse why not elucidate on the Trump failures and their placement on the front pages of those papers... Where is the conspiracy about Trump's failed marriage and his tax returns and his associations with 'nefarious unscrupulous' business men and politicians around the world.. i'm still open to voting 'not her' but the ideologues on this blog (including our esteemed host) haven't even laid a glove on her yet... on one hand i hear that federal govt can't fight its way out of a paper bag and then the next comment says they are so skilled at silencing people with 'damning' information that would topple the govt.. still a long way to go but the ship is sinking and i'm betting the captain will be the first one in the lifeboat while the rest wring their hands and think about what might have been if only people had believed my conspiracy.. i guess it takes a village of bloggers to keep the conspiracies going... !
Brando said:
The Times is the Clintonite House Paper, serving her needs whenever possible. Here we have as close to a smoking gun as we're going to get--that Clinton and her aides basically intermingled their "foundation" work with State Department work--and it's completely drowned out by Trump's latest "outrage". Intentionally or not, he is saving this woman's candidacy.
To your point: Look at Drudge. It appears there is a "bad news for Hillary" dump in progress. I'm guessing the idea is to use Trump's hiccup as cover while littering the news with negative articles that will appear as background noise and will tomorrow be "old news".
Klavan mocks the situation as whether you prefer the gangster or the psycho.
The opinion is that Americans are more comfortable with gangsters.
So Trump as psycho will always be the story.
"It's interesting that so far today we've come up with a couple of new conspiracies "
Heh, to quote Instapundit. These aren't new conspiracies of course. Just ongoing ones.
And to add, one GWash.
The response team is quick, give them that.
Althouse said..."A penthouse was built on top of Bill's library?!"
That's what I remember from reporting at the time.
Not politically correct is always psycho.
Op, we woke up the assigned troll, GWash.
GWash, you're behind the issue and don't know of what you write.
The emails are the facts. They appear to show that if someone wanted/needed something on which the U.S. State Department and their netowrk could help, you could get State Department attention and service in exchange for consideration which included payments to Clintons personally.
Or do you really believe that the Clintons say things in their "speaches" that are worth $250K and $500K? If you do, then your employer isn't getting their money's worth for your trolling services.
"But, but, the polls are lying, say the Trumpites. Until the disaster happens in November. Then it will somehow be the fault of the people who warned against the clown."
Yeah, they need to drop this argument--the polls re: Trump through the primaries were pretty accurate, and usually overstated his support. In any campaign, you need good intel, and if you're not trusting the polls and assuming you're doing much better than you are, you're less likely to see you need a course correction. He's right now in trouble and needs to break through his 45% ceiling.
"Now that's funny. You can just see the prog journos at their keyboards trying to find the right word. Lust? Greed? Nah, let's go with stress."
Yeah, stress my ass--Harry Truman had financial stress, and his example was why Congress decided to pay a pension to ex-presidents. The idea that the Clintons just HAD to make over $100 million is ludicrous.
It's fine they wanted money--who doesn't? And maybe they wanted a lot more money than normal people would be satisfied with--they after all hang in wealthy circles, and keeping up with friends like that is harder than keeping up with Marge and Joe down the street who you have over for cookouts. But let's not try and pretend the Clintons are normal everyday people--they're rich and cocooned. Again, not a problem! So was Romney and I was fine with that (though apparently Democrats weren't). But the real issue with the Clintons was that they traded access for cash, and with Hillary's impending status as a likely next president (more likely in the past five years than any other "potential" candidate) and her position at State, it stinks of bribery. The Times can try to spin it, but that's why so many people don't trust her.
Landslide Trump. The polls are lies and total bullshit.
MICK'S BACK! Although how anyone can take you seriously after all of your Obama-birther predictions is beyond me. How did that end up working out for you in the end?
Ann said: "A penthouse was built on top of Bill's library?!"
Yep. That's why Rush has always called it The Clinton Library and Massage Parlor"
I think this is a good approximation of the polls. We can tell who is going to win, not just by the polls, but by the media coverage. Sure, the media is in the tank for Democrats, but not so in the tank that they'd completely ruin all business in the future.
So they sincerely believe that America believes that Trump is beyond the pale. They also believe that they are reflecting America's belief, rather than trying to lead it. Although they do realize they have influence.
Ultimately, I think anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall. Clinton is going to be our next President.
And while I think this is not going to be good for our nation, I do think it's important to fight back and to remember who said what and when during this election. Why? Because they need to be held accountable in the future.
This doesn't just include the MSM, it also includes #NeverTrump.
Blogger Brando said...
"But, but, the polls are lying, say the Trumpites. Until the disaster happens in November. Then it will somehow be the fault of the people who warned against the clown."
Yeah, they need to drop this argument--the polls re: Trump through the primaries were pretty accurate, and usually overstated his support. In any campaign, you need good intel, and if you're not trusting the polls and assuming you're doing much better than you are, you're less likely to see you need a course correction. He's right now in trouble and needs to break through his 45% ceiling.
I don't think the polls are lying, I think they are working on false assumptions.
But I'm no pollster and I'm biased, and I realize this, so I realize just how wrong I could be.
My theory is that the pollsters get a lot of air time in the media. They are now talking heads who get asked about the polls they conduct and get paid to make appearances. The media and the pollsters all work off of a certain set of assumptions. For example, Rasmussen was wrong last election because they assumed a larger Republican turn out. This time around, they don't want to have egg on their face, so they are sharing the assumptions of the other pollsters and media.
If their assumptions are correct, then their polls are mostly correct (Although the percentages are almost certainly off, since they are so wide apart). But if their assumptions are incorrect, 1 of 2 things might happen.
1) Trump will win big and embarrass the pollsters and their assumptions.
2) Trump will still lose because the polls were leading opinion rather than following it.
Based off of the large Paul Ryan win, I'd say it's a pretty good prediction to hold their assumptions are correct. But then I doubt myself on this conclusion because polling a congressional district and 1 political party has got to be much easier than polling an entire nation.
eric said...
Ultimately, I think anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall. Clinton is going to be our next President.
8/10/16, 2:08 PM
I think you are correct. It is just about impossible to overcome her lead with the illegal alien voters, the felon voters, the dead voters, and the "multiple vote casting" voters, even in those districts that will have the Black Panthers running security and monitoring...
Oh, and a Prediction.
We will see the polls change. They will come back in for Trump (Maybe not show him leading, but show a tighter race). This won't be because voters are changing their minds, it will be because pollsters assumptions will change.
Blogger Todd said...
eric said...
Ultimately, I think anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall. Clinton is going to be our next President.
8/10/16, 2:08 PM
I think you are correct. It is just about impossible to overcome her lead with the illegal alien voters, the felon voters, the dead voters, and the "multiple vote casting" voters, even in those districts that will have the Black Panthers running security and monitoring...
Yep. There is a lot of cheating going on. Yesterday I was tweeting to a woman in Philly. She had never heard the story before that Romney got zero votes in 59 districts/wards. She said she lived and voted for Romney in one of those wards. I told her she needed to go to Fox News, or Breitbart, or Project Veritas or someone with evidence that she voted. She basically said what difference does it make at this point?
I think you are correct. It is just about impossible to overcome her lead with the illegal alien voters, the felon voters, the dead voters, and the "multiple vote casting" voters, even in those districts that will have the Black Panthers running security and monitoring...
Any Republican candidate in the modern era has to not only outperform in critical swing states, but also cover the margin of fraud, like beating the spread. So far it's not looking likely that Trump will pull that off.
Actually, the most significant news story of the day, concerning such matters as the welfare of this nation, is this -
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm
A bit buried in the tables is real news.
Some rather tendentious commentary - still, perfectly accurate
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/inconvenient-jobs-revisions-obama
" the Bureau of Labor Statistics yesterday reported a massive downward revision of the 1Q 2016 YoY real wage growth from +4.2% to -0.4% (a 4.6% swing). "
And, may I add, significant negative productivity growth, etc., etc.
" the Bureau of Labor Statistics yesterday reported a massive downward revision of the 1Q 2016 YoY real wage growth from +4.2% to -0.4% (a 4.6% swing). "
Unexpectably!
Someone tweeted out this truthful rewrite of the Clintons' financial history. Good stuff.
Again, hearsay from some woman in Phila. is not proof... the whole voter fraud thing was investigated and the results are very disappointing for Repub. politicians... if there is voting fraud going on it should be proven and prosecuted... anything less is spitting into the wind... and makes you sound less than genuine... not a troll just hoping that we can talk specifics and facts...
GWash,
I respect you. You are not a troll. You are a professional, doing a good job.
I know I am taking a big chance here but GWash, if you really do care to understand, read these:
http://justplainenglish.blogspot.com/2016/07/voter-fraud-example-22.html
http://justplainenglish.blogspot.com/2016/04/voter-fraud-example-21.html
http://justplainenglish.blogspot.com/2015/10/yet-more-but-there-is-no-such-thing-as.html
and I could go on. It is not hard, a few Google searches would allow you to find plenty of evidence of both voter fraud and of Democrats/liberals obstructing corrective actions BUT that is not what you are actually looking for now is it?
Oops, here is another one hot off of the presses:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/10/alabama-court-upholds-conviction-of-woman-guilty-of-voter-fraud-which-were-assured-never-happens/
Granted, not a national election but the same rules should apply, no?
Giuliani basically called the Clinton Foundation a RICO enterprise.
"My theory is that the pollsters get a lot of air time in the media. They are now talking heads who get asked about the polls they conduct and get paid to make appearances. The media and the pollsters all work off of a certain set of assumptions. For example, Rasmussen was wrong last election because they assumed a larger Republican turn out. This time around, they don't want to have egg on their face, so they are sharing the assumptions of the other pollsters and media."
That's true--a lot of methods of the pollsters can be challenged in a year like this. For example, the "likely voter" calculation works most years, but Trump claims his appeal is mostly to get the "unlikely" voters to turn out, which could mean the pollsters are off a bit. And if their sampling is pulling in more "white collar" Republicans than "Blue collar unaffiliated" based on previous elections, they could be underestimating his strength, too.
The one reason I'm very skeptical of that is that they were pretty accurate in Trump's primary campaigns so far, and they would have used similar assumptions in getting their samples. Maybe some assumptions change from primary to general elections, and we'll be surprised this fall.
What I don't buy is that the polls are intentionally skewed (a theory a friend of mine advanced back in 2012 to explain Obama's lead when he figured Romney was really ahead). Any pollster, even a personally biased one (or one affiliated with an organizationally biased one) is only as valuable as their accuracy. Skewing it for a candidate will not only make people decide that pollster is unreliable, it also isn't clear that it pays off--if you try to make a landslide look like a close race to turn out your preferred side, you also risk turning out their opponents. And misleading your own side about their position in the polls is like sending smokescreens in front of your own troops--it'll confuse them and cause them to make mistakes.
If they do have it wrong this year for some reason, I'm sure we'll see a lot of analysis on that come November. But my assumption is they're fairly accurate.
Ann, please accept my apologies for my above comment (to GWash) that includes a few links to another blog but they are "on point" and save a lot of typing and re-linking.
I try to keep that sort of thing to a minimum but would completely understand if you were to remove that (and this) comment...
GWash says: "Again, hearsay from some woman in Phila. is not proof"
GWash has drunk deep the training. Just keep repeating "That's not proof".
Stare at the King and keep saying "He's fully clothed." Everyone else will be too lazy or too scared to say the King has not clothes.
Cummon and sing with me GWash - sing it loud and proud:
Movin', movin', movin'
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep them doggies movin', rawhide!
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope an' throw an' brand 'em
Soon we'll all be livin' high an' wide
My heart's calculatin'
That Hillary will be waitin'
Be waitin' at the end of our voter ride
GWash-
The Left uses the definition of 'voter fraud' pushed by the Brennan Center for Justice, a far-left legal non-profit. The Brennan center got its definition from a political scientist, not from the JD. That definition was chosen by the Brennan Center because it makes voter fraud very difficult to detect and especially difficult to prove. To the Brennan center, voter fraud depends on two things: the voter must know that they are voting fraudulently and must be doing so in order to effect the outcome of an election.
Intent is very difficult to prove. It is not voter fraud, for example to knowingly register voters who are using fraudulent (or no) ID.
If I drive in around in a van, pick up strangers, take them to what I tell them is their polling place to vote, drive them back to wherever and give them a pack of smokes for their trouble, no voter fraud has taken place.
If you believe that if illegal immigrants, if they can cast votes, would vote 3:1 for your party, there is no need to conspire to do anything other than make it easier for illegals to cast votes -- which is what the dems are happy to do.
"Granted, not a national election but the same rules should apply, no?'
The problem with prosecuting onesey-twosey election fraud is the overwhelming problem of volume. It takes a large amount of resources to investigate and gather evidence for each individual case, and then you do not get the organizers of the fraud. It is way to easy to cut these out. DA's rarely find these things worth prosecuting. Also, there are political issues in play. Its rare that a failed case of fraud rates investigation, while prosecuting a successful one probably means challenging an office-holder.
This is a very difficult thing to prove in each individual case, even when done on a large scale and even with a willing DA. The US model for blatant fraud was the Moscone-Barbagelata SF Mayors race of 1975, where acknowledged fraud (subsequently admitted to by participants!) perpetrated by Jim Jones Peoples Temple swung the election. The SF DA would not prosecute.
Necessary ref - "Season of the Witch", D. Talbot
This fraud was just one thing going down at the time, and only one episode in a crescendo of evil, in which the SF Democratic Party was involved to its eyebrows.
Foreign election agencies and international agencies have long since recognized this, it is a futile approach. Objections on this basis knowing what international standards are, are disingenuous ( a word of the day!).
" the Bureau of Labor Statistics yesterday reported a massive downward revision of the 1Q 2016 YoY real wage growth from +4.2% to -0.4% (a 4.6% swing). "
And, may I add, significant negative productivity growth, etc., etc.
The next President will not be able to cover up the state of the economy through progressive debt, smoothing functions, immigration reform, and creative destruction.
Well, maybe if it's another Democrat; but, eventually the clump of cells will be traced to the baby.
"Well, maybe if it's another Democrat; but, eventually the clump of cells will be traced to the baby."
Not necessarily.
Argentina is my favorite example. Decline was cooked in through the corruption of institutions.
It's a sad state of affairs. Election fraud is perhaps the most fundamental subversion of Democracy, and yet it is extremely difficult to prove and prosecute. And thus it's easy to deny that it ever occurs on any real scale. There's no shortage of anecdotal evidence floating around.
Votes are collected and counted by humans. Humans are fallible imperfect creatures given to covetousness, envy, and venality. It's logical to assume that some level of fraud occurs. And yet we have no real way to effectively stop it.
"And yet we have no real way to effectively stop it."
Yes you do -
This was done in the Philippines, look up NAMFREL, and a national hero, Joe Concepcion.
It takes a movement, it takes people willing to take risks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Citizens%27_Movement_for_Free_Elections
http://pcij.org/stories/jose-concepcion-jr/
Nonapod said...
It's logical to assume that some level of fraud occurs. And yet we have no real way to effectively stop it.
8/10/16, 3:24 PM
You are right that we can't 100% eliminate it but we can most definitely get a handle on it. Just do things like:
a) Valid, state issued "citizen" ID to be allowed to vote.
b) Reduce and/or eliminate absentee voting, early voting, and same day registration/voting.
c) Enact tough penalties for fraud like no less than 5 years in prison per incident.
d) Bi-partisan poll watchers.
e) Paper ballots as a backup to machine processing.
Sounds like a nice start to me.
Voting, despite what you might have heard is a privilege, not a right. I personally feel that voting should not be too easy. If you don't care enough about voting to prepare for it and schedule for it, I would rather you didn't. We have too many "idiots" that vote today and don't know or understand what they are voting for. I have no problem with making voting a little less "convenient".
Frankly the words "Bill Clinton" and "Penthouse" did not lead my first thoughts to real estate.
I guess that's why the NYT put the article about the Clinton's homes at #4, to guide the reader in that direction...
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 18 1994 - Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.
In making such a sweeping move, the judge, Clarence C. Newcomer of Federal District Court here, did for the Republicans what the election had not: enable them to regain control of the State Senate, which they lost two years ago.
Judge Newcomer ruled that the Democratic campaign of William G. Stinson had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's Second Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- like a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.
In many instances, according to Republicans who testified during a four-day civil trial last week, Democratic campaign workers forged absentee ballots. On many of the ballots, they used the names of people who were living in Puerto Rico or serving time in prison, and in one case, the voter had been dead for some time.
"Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery," Judge Newcomer wrote in a decision made public today.
So let's see how the investigation of voter fraud is doing now in PA:
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office ran an undercover sting operation over three years that captured leading Philadelphia Democrats, including four members of the city's state House delegation, on tape accepting money, The Inquirer has learned.
Yet no one was charged with a crime.
Prosecutors began the sting in 2010 when Republican Tom Corbett was attorney general. After Democrat Kathleen G. Kane took office in 2013, she shut it down.
In a statement to The Inquirer on Friday, Kane called the investigation poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism, saying it had targeted African Americans.
Those who favored the sting believe Kane killed a solid investigation, led by experienced prosecutor Frank G. Fina, that had ensnared several public officials and had the potential to capture more. They said they were outraged at Kane's allegation that race had played a role in the case.
OOPs, the PA Attorney General shut down the investigation and let all the Democrats of the hook!
But we do have this:
A Philadelphia Election Board worker was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly tampering with voting machines and electioneering inside the polls.
In quick response, Pennsylvania GOP’s Philadelphia area Executive Director Joe DeFelice commented on the arrest.
“This is not surprising to us in the least,” said DeFelice. “Such voter fraud and tampering has been an ongoing problem in Philadelphia for decades.”
The press release from the PA GOP was entitled, “No Kidding.”
“The Election Board is the first line in providing free and fair elections, and unfortunately, this is where we see the majority of our election-related issues.
“How can voters feel confident that their votes are being counted – and how can we ensure the integrity of any election – if we allow this type of tampering and fraud to continue in Philadelphia?
But troll on Democrats. "Muddy the waters!" Isn't that what was in the DNC memos? Carry on!
Mick was wrong? Perhaps in expecting the law to do something about Obama's fraud.
The Clinton emails should be on the front page. But so should Trump's speech about the 2nd Amendment.... It's pretty easy to see why Trump's make bigger headlines. HE said them. While emails are vague. What's it all about? What do they say? Are laws being broken? It's confusing and convoluted. But Trump's words are much better. Especially in the soundbyte world.
tim in Vermont
That news item is from 1994.... That's like indicting Reagan because of what Nixon did.
"Especially in the soundbyte world."
Its not the soundbyte world that makes soundbytes significant, but the machine that relates them. Soundbytes matter because the machine makes them matter.
These things don't just happen.
the clump of cells will be traced to the baby...
Decline was cooked in through the corruption of institutions.
I agree. The corruption will not be exposed unless there are divergent interests, and perhaps a Reagan to unwind their ball of yarns, or a Patton to break their diverse schemes.
I have a dream that one day we will reconcile moral and natural imperatives.
Security experts have expressed their concern with electronic voting machines lately. I'm predicting a Trump win. Total votes --
Trump 390,897,340,275
Clinton 287,495,327,503
The next President will not be able to cover up the state of the economy through progressive debt, smoothing functions, immigration reform, and creative destruction.
This is what worries me. All of the noise on the 24 hr news cycle is just BS. In looking at the sites of the two candidates neither seems to understand how our debt and deficits will ultimately be our undoing. One promises tons of spending and no entitlement reforms and the other yuge tax cuts, not revenue neutral!
I think we're at ~110% debt/gdp now, well above the point which stifles growth. CBO projections for deficits are worse going forward now.
It would seem we will just have to wait for the external purchasers of our debt to dictate the terms to us. I would guess that would not be a pleasant time for us.
Robert Laszewski's blog has been calling that for a while, and he seems an honest broker. Classic death spiral
The media and the Hillary Campaign (but I repeat myself) are having a collective melt down over Donald's so called gaffe.
Hillary and Bill used the State dept to illegally stuff family foundation coffers - page 32. and no mention at all in the MSM.
i'm just trying to get to the bottom line... i accessed the links sent to me regarding voter fraud and Todd was up to #23... lets see, there were over 13 million votes cast in Calif. alone in 2012 pres. race... As i stated if you can prove voter fraud (to me that is someone knowingly voting illegally for payment or to skew the results) they should be prosecuted ... thanks for the links and i'll keep checking that blog for further updates... but i sincerely and with all due respect to you all think that Todd needs to do a little more verification before we start assuming that votes are being skewed because of fraud. there are folks with more experience and resources on both sides of the argument looking at this (including Federal Courts) and there seems to be no 'there, there' as they say... but i'll keep checking in on Todd to see if he comes up with evidence to that would convince a regular person, not an ideologue... thanks again for reading ... i'm not laslo but i'll go look elsewhere for informed discussion of the issues... i was drawn originally to this blog by the Dylan references but i can see that is a minor string here... have a great time and good luck with your ideas!
That news item is from 1994.... That's like indicting Reagan because of what Nixon did.
I know, I bolded the date, there are three stories there. The trend continues to the present.
The biggest story of the day is the Justice Dept. telling the FBI to back off of the Clinton Foundation investigation. Coupled with the WikiLeaks revelations, non-corrupt non-Globalist politicians would be convening impeachment hearings-- at least.
That's like indicting Reagan because of what Nixon did
More like indicting Clinton for Carter's misdeeds.
Hillary might win in a landslide. So did Nixon in 1972. By 1974 his chickens had come home to roost and he was gone. Just saying....
This is starting to smell like Watergate-on-steroids!! "What did the President know, and when did he know it?".
I'm guessing that Bill Clinton's visit with AG Lynch was intimidation. If the Just Us department indicted Hillary, then the Clinton's could show that Obama was complicit with the private email server. I'm pretty sure resignation, or impeachment would have to follow. What other negotiation ploy could the Clinton's have used??
As my mother likes to say, 'The whole thing stinks to high heaven!'
"The right-wing organization behind this lawsuit has been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s and no matter how this group tries to mischaracterize these documents, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton never took action as secretary of state because of donations to the Clinton Foundation," Schwerin said in a statement.
An oldie but a goody. "Vast right wing conspiracy," which she keeps feeding by doing stuff that ranges from sketchy to treasonous.
Four years of this shit. I can't hardly wait.
Democrats, if you picked anybody else, you would be winning in a walk. Have a fresh start, a new day. Probably win back the Senate and maybe the House. But it had to be Clinton. Their personal ambition was the most important thing. Good job!
tim in Vermont
Okay, I see that now. Troubling news. However I'm not sure we can extrapolate from that that Obama won PA twice because of it or that Hillary will win PA because of it. Especially when Obama didn't need it to win and Hillary presently doesn't need it either.
No wonder Hillary has promised to crack down on the first amendment.
Okay, I see that now. Troubling news. However I'm not sure we can extrapolate from that that Obama won PA twice because of it or that Hillary will win PA because of it. Especially when Obama didn't need it to win and Hillary presently doesn't need it either.
Bush probably lost it in 2000 for that reason. Enough college kids from Marquette admitted in a survey, just that one campus, to voter fraud to have tipped Wisconsin in that election as well.
"Okay, I see that now. Troubling news. However I'm not sure we can extrapolate from that that Obama won PA twice because of it or that Hillary will win PA because of it. Especially when Obama didn't need it to win and Hillary presently doesn't need it either."
There is no need to "prove" that this made a difference in any particular case, merely that it happened. This is a case of large scale vote rigging run by the Democrat machine brought to light. What it shows is a great deal of smoke, indicating a large fire.
It is highly unlikely to be an isolated case. In fact, based on the cumulative reports of these matters across the system, it seems more like SOP. It is historically true in California (as admitted by various participants, such as Willie Brown - he jokes about it).
Stress Over Money Pushed Clinton Into Corporate World.
This article reads very differently when corrected for inflation:
http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2016/8/10/2suusri2dz7tw21csemeiokh5e4ykv
Not mentioned in the inflation correction article: the Clintons were living rent free with a state provided food and entertainment budget for almost this entire period! $190,000 + free mansion + free food and free entertainment isn't bad for a 31 year old .
Four years of this shit. I can't hardly wait.
Eight.
But his wife had a more pressing concern: money. The ousted governor needed a job, the family needed a place to live, and moving out of the governor’s mansion meant losing the help they had as they raised their 9-month-old daughter, Chelsea.
Oh, yeah. Free child care, too.
Eight
I seriously doubt that, but I haven't been cynical enough in the past.
Bill Clinton gets part of his name from a famous Arkansas politician known as Little Jefferson Davis. By "Little" was meant that Little Jefferson Davis was not the former President of the Confederacy but only an admirer. Anyhow here is just one of the stories told about Little Jeff. One of his opponents was teetotal which was a popular position in the day and was getting a lot of mileage from that. One day the opponent mounted the stage to debate Little Jeff who held out his hand and then suddenly shouted "What's that under your coat?". Then Little Jeff reached over and grabbed his opponent's left hand, forced a bottle of whiskey into that hand, held up his opponent's left hand closed around the whiskey bottle with his own hand shouting "Look at this, and he says he's teetotal". The guy lost.
How does this apply to Hillary who intends to continue Obama's policy on drone assassinations, who supported Ghadaffi's assassination and whose body count went up by one this week as an Iranian atomic scientist was killed thanks to her carelessness with e-mails - and who is accusing Trump of calling for assassinations? It doesn't because her name is not Jefferson or Davis and she is not little. So there you are.
I liked the part in the story of Clinton's sordid financial history where she is excused because so many of her politically active friends were making "interesting" investments and going from the "upper middle class to wealthy."
Political connections, "interesting investments," well off to filthy rich. Of course she had to play this game.
The Clintons had stretched their finances to afford the $112,000 home, which was down the hill from the city’s old-money mansions. The sprawling estate of Winthrop Rockefeller, the celebrated former governor, was so close that it practically cast a shadow on the Clintons’ grassy backyard.
$112,000 in 1980 = $327,000 today.
Here's a house in Fayetteville currently listed for almost that price:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1552-S-Springlake-Dr-Fayetteville-AR-72701/2124452138_zpid/
6 beds, 4 baths. Proximity to old money mansions not discussed.
Here's an idea: maybe Hillary used thrift store and hand me down furniture because they had just moved out of the governor's mansion (free furniture, too!) and didn't own enough to fill up an entire house.
Mr. Clinton had turned down out-of-state job offers in academia and Democratic politics, and instead took the only offer he had in Arkansas, to serve “of counsel” for $55,000 a year at the Wright, Lindsey & Jennings law firm, where Mr. Clinton’s longtime adviser Bruce R. Lindsey was a partner.
But he spent most of his time on the road, often accompanied by Mr. Lindsey, trying to win back the hearts of voters.
$55,000 = $160,000 today. For a no show job. Plus Hillary's income as a partner at the Rose Law firm.
She increased her hours to bring in work for the firm, with business not as easy to come by now that she was no longer the governor’s wife.
Presented without comment. Written without shame.
You know why Clinton is freaking out about the 2nd amendment comment? Because the 2nd amendment was written to protect Americans from people like her and her supporters.
only people signing up for Obama Care were the people with severe health problems
The treatment of preexisting conditions is paid for by the health penalty tax. Of course the sudden influx of unhealthy people rendered Obamacare nonviable. I wonder why Democrats don't abort it, or supplement it with subscription reform.
“We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living,” she declared.
When she moved to Fayetteville, Ark., and later married Mr. Clinton in 1975, the Yale Law-educated couple lived happily earning about $18,000 a year each in their positions as professors.
$36,000 in 1975 = $160,000 today. One year out of law school.
in 1978 she made one of the most lucrative, if seemingly risky, financial decisions of her life.
Mr. Blair, the Clintons’ close friend, had made several million dollars in the commodities market, and urged Mrs. Clinton to begin trading, too. With an initial investment of just $1,000, she made nearly $100,000 trading cattle futures in a 10-month period
...
In 1978, Mr. Clinton became one of the youngest, and lowest paid, governors, in the country, earning $33,519.14 his first year in office. Mrs. Clinton’s income from the Rose Law Firm brought their combined wages in 1978 to $51,173.
$151,173 in 1978 = $558,871.74 today. 2/3 of that being the cattle futures bribe. This is literally the first year Bill was in office, as the youngest governor in America, four years out of law school.
It's 1902 hrs and the e-mail release finally made it to the WaPo. Two days late!
I must say I love how the Secretary of State has no responsibility for the actions of her subordinates. I wish I had been able to find a job like that.
Hey, obviously the interests of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation overlap. That's how you know that the CF is entirely noble in its intentions. Or, perhaps it is a perfectly modest and understandable case of "L'état, c'est moi."
@campy & tim
No way Hillary makes it 8 years, and probably not 4. I'm going to watch the debates just to see if team Trump professionals have trained him how to TKO her by inducing a seizure.
A penthouse was built on top of Bill's library?!
Oh, yes indeed. I understand it's his favorite, essentially a bachelor pad as the little woman is rarely there. They say he loves being in Little Rock more than anywhere.
"Mr. Blair, the Clintons’ close friend, had made several million dollars in the commodities market, and urged Mrs. Clinton to begin trading, too. With an initial investment of just $1,000, she made nearly $100,000 trading cattle futures in a 10-month period." This is not how it went down. He did not "urge" her to do something she knew nothing about. She did not "make" $100K "trading." This was a bribe pure and simple, the first of many. Gave them a taste for more and showed how to get away with it. Money "made," lessons learned. And after all these years, reporters are still shilling for them--another lesson learned long ago.
Well to some extent the New York Times is waaaay ahead of the Daily Dog Trainer, also known as the Los Angeles Times out here in Los Angeles. I'd been out of the country during the month of July. I started reading the LA Times again on August 1. Every day the front or alleged "national news" section of the Times has a steady drumbeat of negative articles about Trump. Doesn't matter what--each day there is a new "Trump Outrage". Hillary's campaign is mentioned not at all.
You get to the op ed page (to the extent you can distinguish it from the "news" pages) and 80 percent of the material is Trump bashing. That goes on day after day after day. If I didn't know better, I'd say that there was only one candidate in the race and he is either a bozo or a buffoon or both.
It's old news..but
Parents of 2 Americans Killed in Benghazi Attack Sue Hillary Clinton
Ends on a Clintonian note:
"A report the committee filed in June found no new evidence of wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton."
But hey..since there's talk of the struggle so real the Clintons overcame, we should be applauding the wonderful optics of Berno buying a 3rd home..right while some of his fave n. European dreamscapes pressure owners of 2nd homes to share with "migrants". Endorses Clinton, bails on the party..then flaunts his rise towards the 1%. Man. of. principles.
I've noticed a trend lately.
Every Hillary scandal begins or ends with something like, "GOP seizes on....." or ends with exonerating Clinton somehow, as walter posted above.
But if it's a Trump scandal, no mention of the Democrats seizing on anything.
The New York Post put the story front and center:
http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/emails-reveal-hillarys-shocking-pay-for-play-scheme/
Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme
Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation — including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday.
The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton’s inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
Sure...but Trump put a price on Hil's head..doncha know...
Hay, Unknown, you paying attention?
Your gal is a grifter.
Every job Hillary has ever had she got through her husband -- from teaching law school in Arkansas through the Rose law firm to the secretary of state. And at every step of the way, she lined her pockets with other peoples' money.
What a great feminist heroine.
Clinton, Kaine prepare for fundraisers with 1 percenters
By SARAH WESTWOOD (@SARAHCWESTWOOD) • 8/10/16 12:40 AM
Hillary Clinton and Sen. Tim Kaine are slated to attend a string of fundraisers in Texas and California this month with corporate executives, celebrities and donors to the Clinton Foundation.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-kaine-prepare-for-fundraisers-with-1-percenters/article/2598998
Hey, what's with all the Clinton hatred?
She's just a gal in a pantsuit trying to do what's best for this country.
She's just a gal in a pantsuit trying to do what's best for this country
The last thing on Crooked Hillary's mind, when it isn't short circuiting, is the good of the country.
Yep, the media's to blame for your candidate being a toxic sludge spewing orange manatee.
Yep, the media's to blame for your candidate being a toxic sludge spewing orange manatee
Better than a war mongering kleptocrat whose main drive seems to be amassing personal wealth by selling favors granted with the power entrusted to her by the people of the United States.
Top of Page A10 in the Wednesday, August 10, 2016 printed edition of the Mew York Times.
New Questions About Pverlap Between Clinton State Dept. and Charity"
It was almost the whole front page of the New York Post - and less cautious.
SHOCK EMAIL REVEAL {white letters in red box)
HILL
SELLS
U>S> OUT [Large black latterrs]
On side underlined: State Dept
favors for
Clinton $$
Plus a picture of Hillary Clinton and the words, (white in black box) SEE PAGES 4-5.
The New York Daly News front page headline editorialized that Trump should end his campaign. Which they probably don't really want. Or Hillary Clinton doesn't.
THE NEWS SAYS [yellow in yellow bordered box on black background
Huge white letetrs:
THIS
ISN'T
A JOKE
ANYMORE
Smaller letters, many words in red, all underlined.
When Trump hinted gun-rights supporters
shoot Hillary, he went from offensive to
reckless. He must end his campaign. If he
doesn't, the GOP needs to abandon him.
The words in red are: Trump, shoot Hillary, offensove, teckless, end, campaign, GOP and abandon.
A picture of Trump to the side.
Also a small pictire of an old front page that said:
cLOWN
RUNS
FOR PREZ
and the words PAGES 4-5, 26
Scott M said...
Landslide Trump. The polls are lies and total bullshit.
"MICK'S BACK! Although how anyone can take you seriously after all of your Obama-birther predictions is beyond me. How did that end up working out for you in the end?"
The only way I was wrong was in expecting there to be "law" when the executor of the laws is an illegal entity. I also sued Cruz and Rubio because they are not natural born Citizens--- Both Political Parties are committing treason, and the media and judiciary run interference. I saw POS judges lie right to my face, but I did make them all lie, so the future will know who committed treason.
Hillary is a sociopath. Bill is a rapist. They are the most corrupt politicians in US history. You can't even make a counter argument. Every person who votes for Hillary Clinton is a disgusting person. You have no soul. If you can't fight against these people you are worthless.
If Hillary is elected it is the end of the rule of law. She doesn't accept laws. If they don't apply to her or to her cronies they don't apply to us either.
Mick
Where might we find details on your suit?
John Henry
Election fraud has been going on forever and everybody knows it. This goes back to Tammany when a man would vote with a full beard, get shaved to muttonchops and vote again, get shorn again to a mustache and vote again, then vote a fourth time clean-shaven. Tricks have evolved since.
If a possibility of electoral fraud exists, it should be eliminated. This isn't college, we're not on the honor system. Any who resist this want the fraud because it serves them.
I can hardly wait to vote for Secretary Clinton for President. She is a fine person who has worked for the disadvantaged and for Children for much of her life. It is amazing to me how effective the 20+ year institutional character assassination of Mrs. Clinton has been. THIS email story is all-smoke: like all the crap since whitewater. The imputation of nefarious motives is one of the last resorts of losers. 3 out of 3300 emails, two of which were not given proper headers? HA!
And I really, really am looking for the NYT headline in November with Clinton smiling and Trump fuming under the words "WINNER, and LOSER" respectively.
Zach said...
in 1978 she made one of the most lucrative, if seemingly risky, financial decisions of her life.
Mr. Blair, the Clintons’ close friend, had made several million dollars in the commodities market, and urged Mrs. Clinton to begin trading, too. With an initial investment of just $1,000, she made nearly $100,000 trading cattle futures in a 10-month period
8/10/16, 6:54 PM
If anyone you knew could turn $1000 into $100,000 in less than a year "playing" at something that was not their primary job, why in the world would they do anything else? Imagine what you could turn $1000 into if you actually focused on it!
If that were on the up-and-up, she could have started the most successful commodities trading company in the entire history of the world!
Wait, what? You mean Hillary! was not a "cattle futures" phenom? Say it ain't so!
As was then, as is now. No main-stream reporter thinks that there is any sort of story there at all. It is all "old news" and well, at this point "what difference does it make?"
Achilles said... 8/11/16, 6:50 AM
Hillary is a sociopath. Bill is a rapist. They are the most corrupt politicians in US history.
Maybe most skilled at cover-ups. The neficiary oof the distilled wisdom of generations of conmen.
Brando said...
The Times is the Clintonite House Paper,
No, it isn't. That's the New York Daily News.
It was the Daily News that first broke the story about Melania's (possibly illegal) immigration status, echoed by a Clinton spokesman on Fox News Sunday this Sunday..
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/08/07/exclusive-gingrich-becerra-debate-state-2016-race/
BECERRA: After 30,000 e-mails have been disclosed, what we don't yet know is one tax return from Donald Trump, we don't yet know how his wife gained her immigration status --
GINGRICH: That is not true. That is not true.
BECERRA: It's time for Donald Trump to start providing one iota of information on the tax returns, which he's never agreed to do.
GINGRICH: OK. First of all, we know that his wife had a green card before she met him. She came here --
(CROSSTALK)
BECERRA: How did she get the green card?
GINGRICH: She came here legally.
BECERRA: How did she get the green card?
GINGRICH: She came here legally.
BECERRA: How did she get the green card?
GINGRICH: She applied for a green card. She didn't know Donald Trump.
(CROSSTALK)
BECERRA: Because she had been here before she came to work.
GINGRICH: And then she came here and decided she want to stay and work.
BECERRA: Yes.
GINGRICH: This is the only immigrant in America you're worried about. I think it's amazing the one person you decide to pick on happens to the wife of Donald Trump.
BECERRA: Interesting that the immigrant basher is unwilling how his wife, an immigrant, got gained her status.
GINGRICH: First of all, he’s not an immigrant basher. His mother was a legal immigrant. His wife is a legal immigrant. He employs legal immigrants. He just likes his immigrants to be legal.
BECERRA: It’s great for Mrs. Trump to have her status and her citizenship. I have no problems with that. I’m the son of immigrants, but what does concern me is when some guy goes out and bashes immigrants, not only undocumented, but legal immigrants and won't explain how his wife gained her legal status --
WALLACE: I think we have made the point. Let's turn to the economy, kind of a big issue. Here is what Trump says about his plan.
This refers to two things: First the pictures taken in 1995, when she had no workk status. Legally that is probably not really a problem because she probably wasn't paid for it and the pictures were sold in Europe. The second issue is getting agreen card in 2001, apparently on grounds of marriage, but she didn't marry Donald Trump until 2005, and a fiance visa is onl good for 90 days.
Now what must have happened is that Clinton machine illegally obtained her immigration file. They an't go public with it, but they can ask the right kind of questions and generate stories. Like for instance, getting the 1995 Manhattan photographer to sell Rupert Murdoch the 1995 pictures of Melania. Maybe they first had somebody buy the rights. THe Clintons hire private detectives, they found out things.
Unknown said...
Tricks have evolved since.
Yeah. They use absentee ballots. now.
The cattle futures investments ended because the negotiated $100,000 bribe had been paid in full. If Mrs. Clinton was able to raise that much investing on her own, she would have continued investing until she had raised enough money to pay for Chelsea's college and her retirement. We all know she likes money. But she didn't.
The whole NYT story is about how impoverished the Clinton family was in the years when Bill did not hold office and Hillary could not leverage access to that office into income for the family. Boo hoo.
Even in those days, a mediocre lawyer in a small American town could make $40,000 a year and live pretty well. The idea of the Yale-educated Clintons eking out a hand-to-mouth living in Arkansas is offensive to anyone who ever has met people who are actually needy.
Would you like to see a criminal investigation into Melania Trump’s immigration and naturalization? Or, because the statute of limitations has expired, de-naturalization proceedings against her?
Melania will win the case – she won’t get de-naturalized – but the harassment will use up a lot of Donald Trump’s money, not to mention making him out to be a hypocrite, and making sure Donald Trump won’t run again in 2020, not that that is something that Hillary Clinton would necessarily wish to avoid.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/anti-trump-group-probe-melania-immigration-history-article-1.2742835
Anti-Trump group files complaint with U.S. Customs and Border Protection for formal probe into Melania Trump’s immigration history
….In a statement, the Democratic Coalition Against Trump said that the agency “has a duty” to conduct an “immediate and thorough investigation” into claims that the potential first lady violated U.S. immigration laws…
….Her immigration status emerged as hot-button issue last week after racy photos of her in the U.S. dating back to 1995 were published — raising questions about how the Slovenian-born model would have been able to legally work in the United States.
Melania has repeatedly said she first came to the U.S. in 1996 on a short-term visa. But those documents wouldn’t have allowed her to legally work in the country.
There are also irregularities in her work visas, but that was routine in the fashion industry then, and of course whatever his visa said in 2001.
The only way anyone could know that something was wrong, of course, would be if somebody violated the Privacy Act of 1974.
Sebastian said...8/10/16, 7:27 PM
She did not "make" $100K "trading." This was a bribe pure and simple, the first of many. Gave them a taste for more and showed how to get away with it.
No, according to a pilot. Don Tyson was already sending small amounts of cash to the Governor periodically. This enabled him to take care of it all at once. One of the special prosecutors Janet Reno appointed, the one for Mike Espy, wanted to look into it further but Janet Rebno told him that was ptside his jurisdiction, and the specicla prosecutor didn't go to court to reverse that.
wildswan said... 8/10/16, 6:31 PM
an Iranian atomic scientist was killed thanks to her carelessness with e-mails
This is one those false memes taht the Clintons probably set circulating. It was no secret that he was defector. The U,.S> was trying to discourage him from returning to Iran. The only secret involved the question of was he already a U.S. agent while still in Iran which the emails relased last fall did not discuss.
It's similar nonsense to say security arrangements for thw Ambassador were revealed in her emails (these would have to be hacked emails or still classified ones)
People should know better than to say these things, as Milhouse says. (at least about one of these two things)
- and who is accusing Trump of calling for assassinations? It doesn't because her name is not Jefferson or Davis and she is not little. So there you are.
For anyone who thinks that Crooked Hillary was a cattle trading genius, instead of the grifter we all know she is, here is an article that pretty effectively destroys her claims of skill and innocence: Is Hillary Clinton a better commodities trader than George Soros, or did she just get really, really lucky? Both explanations leave something to be desired. The much better explanation is that the $99k was a bribe from Tysons Foods to the governor of the state through his wife, utilizing a commodities broker who has been known to match winning and losing sides of trades, and then later assigning them to the preferred party. Most likely, what he would do is go short and long on the same commodity, and then close it out a bit later. Since they are identical, or at least close, there was little risk to the broker. One would have won, and the other lost. Crooked Hillary would get the winning contract, and Tysons the losing one. Rinse and repeat. If you read the article, the evidence is out together like a prosecutor would trying a fraud case, when he can't find a smoking gun. The interesting thing to me though is how much easier it has gotten for the Clintons to accept bribes. Now one of them just gives a short speech, and they get 5x what they garnered through the dozen or so cattle trades. And for the really big scores, they just let the parties trying to bribe them contribute to their family foundation/slush fund. And we found out yesterday that the details were often worked out by her aides collecting federal pay checks. Yes, the Clintons have refined the con to the point that you and I, through our taxes, were the ones paying to work out the details of how the parties bribing the Clintons got what they were paying for.
PS
Q. I never heard the story about Little Jefferson Davis. It sounds entirely possible he wa snamed after him and makes more sense than Thomas Jefferson. Do you have a reference?
Unknown said...
Election fraud has been going on forever and everybody knows it.
--
And elections have results
And..Hil recently stated she wants to appoint SCOTUS (social) justices so as to "expand voting rights".
"Trump Suggests Gun Owners Could Stop Clinton Agenda."
Gosh, you mean a group that consists of ~1/2 of American voters could "stop" a politicians agenda? This is supposed to be bad / wrong / scary?
Besides, isn't that the standard leftist whine? "The NRA [translation: gun owners who vote] is blocking this totally great legislation!"?
Post a Comment